zaks.anna added a comment. > This makes forwards compatibility difficult, since there is no way to predict > the names of future hashes
> (As far as I understand). Can you describe what you are trying to achieve? We can agree that all issue hashes start with "issue_hash" prefix. If you find an entry with "issue_hash" prefix and unknown suffix, you would know that it's new. It would be the same as a number you have not seen so far. What do you plan to do when a new hash is detected? The reason I like names more than the numbers is that we may use different solutions for issue hash generation and some users might prefer one over the other. It is not necessarily clear which one is the best. Numbers would obfuscate the heuristic used to produce the hash and the quality of the hash and would be mainly based on the time when the hash was introduced. > A third alternative would be to have both semantic names (containing hash) > and a number suffix > which indicates the ordering. If there is a minor enhancement to the existing issue hash method, appending the version number to it is fine by me. Though, this might be confusing in it's own right.. http://reviews.llvm.org/D10305 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
