On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 05:29:02AM -0500, Sheeri K. Cabral wrote: > > I'd go with what Stewart wrote, major.minor.date for dev releases. Same > > problem, the date doesn't actually refer to a specific state of the branch, > > but less likely to confuse people. > > > > > This seems like the best idea to me. Mostly I'm just glad nobody's trying > to write some arbitrary GUID/UUID function for release versions (RUID?).
I was going to suggest that :) One addition I may make to my previous idea would be to have the comment for the build be the full revision id (e.g. [email protected]) Which means that it's possible to, from the binary, find the exact revision that was used to build it. -- Stewart Smith _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
