From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id GIGFNqlJMmEmXAEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 18:13:29 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id WLRwMqlJMmHmPAAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 16:13:29 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EB3B4590 for ; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 18:13:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:42340 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMBom-0006Ul-KJ for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 12:13:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33104) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMBnI-0005Bu-C9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 12:11:57 -0400 Received: from h87-96-130-155.cust.a3fiber.se ([87.96.130.155]:58530 helo=mail.yoctocell.xyz) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMBnF-00057z-Uq for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 12:11:55 -0400 From: Xinglu Chen DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=yoctocell.xyz; s=mail; t=1630685509; bh=KSFZhle3IgaXn7oPTIyGkPU93facOejKnq2hb1JzTDg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=YVhWbnXY0QUwZAWRxsekYBa4MXfmDPMwS3wG7FI+Vubun8QlHvYKE/1YbT2tlMpbB 1GPPC54gfyUosE0xxx/NFZUvq2xJDiw54SXftP7Swvo6qIsbhBwWnYP3BmqTo8DxYR hAqD7I/+MwDslMFxcp6NVX9lcVr71KKGKp/hlcpk= To: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages? In-Reply-To: References: <8635qp1j6k.fsf@mgsn.dev> <87bl5clg3p.fsf@yoctocell.xyz> <2def863d-fd2e-46c3-9a4c-9c6772724d27@www.fastmail.com> <87fsuojl43.fsf@yoctocell.xyz> Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 18:11:46 +0200 Message-ID: <87o899iqpp.fsf@yoctocell.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=87.96.130.155; envelope-from=public@yoctocell.xyz; helo=mail.yoctocell.xyz X-Spam_score_int: 14 X-Spam_score: 1.4 X-Spam_bar: + X-Spam_report: (1.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD=0.5, PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD=1.999, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "Christopher Baines via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." , Sarah Morgensen Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1630685609; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=c2z3Nm6+eSy6a5dYXmBI7FJgd507jM4733e775EEJ3o=; b=iz4j3ZEKXbKKI4zaBbAZXvu4Ado0VOOXLu9mQQplGT7NULFA6ti8fIVXUp1PmltfZdufCm 7WVg2VUsIWJ1uQNfLlifNYj+ZUMXx+6XKSCNu7QdUnYHfDkVcxlVPM7dTHIFtTn6nSVMvp bt74td5M/TglMvzYQ4anbfTPSgVbb5hTs+Hg/Rg8nTS0HlOsEidgmL0z4+mVtmH8cW5omc /QCJW7uSELL1LXekLfpInTHtQRELuXGdmbbjzliYNRq3L+anBARNKJ8i/OrBiBpi9g7asp h2dUZS2Zg0WlWxAZp1AhuYUIEnUcpMxoy7rburseDzCtcOG/Xw0+9z+Y1FcoVQ== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1630685609; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=guCmrS9VE991EPYX2mH9xw3vA56pVvOIc/qaI5bBEl9jrp2yvA0pQNgdmBqHkHPVxycaPK JPzRymOYh5JcrA+3X2F3YPZQWREY84vmnl77S14ig6kTD/c4UJnLG5hpZecGfJypekDaGV U9SI7YDnATGGZuTnAnhe9z9GBv5bYc15R1C2g/9gCqJ/EvANlPB2cOoH/lc6LlqQbNtsHL j2OCxwJe3mpOWzjblxyvbsU8K+Oxg29p+oseBKo5wajScsRLk0yuQhsi6WRDtRgAyywS4k WNkbd2NczzpQ22GgFtE2MsUPdmGi2X3jW5tiphinkaY6fKuwL4tqkTntwagthQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=yoctocell.xyz header.s=mail header.b=YVhWbnXY; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=yoctocell.xyz; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -4.22 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=yoctocell.xyz header.s=mail header.b=YVhWbnXY; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=yoctocell.xyz; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 8EB3B4590 X-Spam-Score: -4.22 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: 9dO4JXf/BU4p --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 02 2021, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 12:51:58PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 06:50:36PM +0200, Xinglu Chen wrote: >> > > Commit dates don't have a consistent meaning: are they the time of >> > > first revision of a commit? Final revision of a commit? Time of >> > > signing? Pushing? They are often useful to estimate a timeline, but >> > > it's common for a Git "timeline" to jump back and forth by months or= a >> > > year due to long-running development branches being merged in, or due >> > > to a "commit and then polish by rebasing" workflow. >> >=20 >> > I would say the the time of the final commit would be the best option, >> > but I agree that it can be ambiguous. > > Reading your message again, I think you misunderstood what I wrote. > > I wasn't asking what date we should choose to include in our package > versions. I was asking, "What does the Git commit timestamp describe?" > And the answer is that there is not a clear answer, and it depends on > the workflow of the person who made the Git commit. My point being that > a Git repo does not offer us meaningful information about when anything > happened. The date does give an idea of how old the version is, compare that to a random string of 7 characters. If a user wants to know the exact commit, they can always just run =E2=80=98guix edit PACKAGE=E2=80=99 and ch= eck the =E2=80=98commit=E2=80=99 field in the source of the package. From=20a Guix developer=E2=80=99s perspective, one can get an idea of rough= ly how old a package is when looking at the package definition. E.g., a few months ago, when Magit hadn=E2=80=99t a release for around 2 years or so, I wanted to see how old our current =E2=80=98emacs-magit=E2=80=99 package was= . To do that I had to =E2=80=98guix edit emacs-magit=E2=80=99, then find the commit-id a= nd copy it, then go to my local checkout of Magit and run =E2=80=98git log COMMIT-ID=E2= =80=99, just to see how old the version was. If the date of the commit was encoded in the version string, I would immediately see that its 6 months old or something; no need to manually look up the commit-id. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJJBAEBCAAzFiEEAVhh4yyK5+SEykIzrPUJmaL7XHkFAmEySUIVHHB1YmxpY0B5 b2N0b2NlbGwueHl6AAoJEKz1CZmi+1x56sIQAJsGFXprDPKt75H4dwP1uTVnJxOt wr5ybeMClRnwKHJvk/oQtQFZqu/4GmmBhuNAvggwtYShGegJWVXxJjRb0+Ilkzdc 1pMPGPXUXdBnZeOnuCOsaT3MbvDg4CgTz0x+YhvEgpzRakc5T8tmZ3bZefcPetZU Ol7M2E9QCAKTgYZfW61y74qafaXLWqueS8LyOGBjs5/Bsye67ec8dxGtDAaJeSNS k+XBhhRcCaorpjO1w++l1NqS9dcZBVJ5KWUKD+fjfMKuMsNQV16ei5Z1ed0ldnEE 7nUfd44YDuFInwBxUctoh0V90IXPVRQyTcWnQBL98N+onVf3dSsrVhLolY3wufhG 3ifnbSSUYIoRvi/E+S+GqGJBdOZdbgI7uvGKrc3gerox8eeTFGM2mk2Irr300D7p w61OCF3pHAWTfXRa9dm0XyLPdG/8iOIJtDw5PnrRpIb+olBHe63TDoptaFob8gki vJc+UYaoh2QXCrSbLpxc3asA4y2JUqLt9a/NQ3xYgtFryh4MEgYq5bFjerN6QPuV DrlP7nzq075BcvheQVrjKb6Jy1iTm6BS0IRenzaTTG1UYz3cxqPidYS/EJk7RliB 4pxnwUqKnnZQ3GRg8fA5GNzNiOtB4qSX7ie/rZMY+g5KVtl+WADmUryvg6T06ZP6 k55FbnFcVE2Rzmf8 =hWpa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--