I think I found the point where I started to misunderstand or disagree with this discussion.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Daniel Nauck<[email protected]> wrote: > Its now impossible to create a numeric label with those source control > systems, e.g. with the LastChange- and AssemblyVersionLabeller > because they provide an SHA-1 hash. This is also the case for every > other SCM that do not have a numeric revision number as commit identifier. I think the solution should be to change AssemblyVersionLabeller to stop assuming numeric revision identifiers. By default, it should increment itself, as DefaultLabeller does. If desired a LastChangeAssemblyVersionLabeller could be made available that works with those version control systems that do provide a number. LastChangeLabeller currently only works with those systems that provide sequential revision numbers. I don't believe this needs to be changed. Builds are not the same things as revisions. Forcing them to share identifiers seems... odd. Although convenient, when simple to do. Dave
