Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages?

[Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>]

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.
> > 
> > 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.