[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Repo cpnversion progress report

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: Repo cpnversion progress report
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 11:44:23 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0

Eric S. Raymond wrote:
I hear the argument about forensics, but the Bazaar revision numbers
are no more helpful for that than the action stamps.

As someone who regularly spelunks back decades, I'd prefer keeping these stamps as small as possible. Even "2003-07-05T12:41:address@hidden" will cause hassles, and I especially wouldn't want to read and digest monsters along the lines of what someone else proposed, e.g., "1985-04-18T00:49:address@hidden (bzr 1) (CVS (RCS 1.71) (emacs-backup ~107~)". It doesn't scale for a revision string to contain all the names that the revision has ever had, for all the version-control systems we've ever used.

It may be that leaving commentary alone is the simplest and best way to keep it short and readable, with a map elsewhere that converts old notation. That being said, I'm willing to give your approach a try. As long as the complete history is available somewhere and is documented, and it's not too much work to use it, it should be OK.

PS. In that 1985 example, the email address address@hidden is ahistorical, as Red Hat didn't exist in 1985. That info is taken straight from the current bzr repository. Most likely the repository was made ahistorical during an earlier conversion, unfortunately.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]