On 7/8/15 12:39 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
because it answers no useful questions i've heard of; it makes it difficult to reproduce the build deterministically;
I'm familiar with the problems related to deterministic builds, and I'm less interested in those problems related to dailies. However ....
and it is actively misleading if there are no changes between two days. (i'm on build 2015-05-04; should i install build 2015-05-06? are there any changes? i can't tell)
... this is a much more persuasive argument, IMO.OTOH, the other potentially relevant argument off the top of my head for using the build date in dailies has to do with changes to the build system that might not be reflected in a new commit. However that's unlikely to happen often enough to be relevant.
there's no need to cross-reference to git at all. 1.9.0~prerelease nightly (build 353) has 4 changes more than 1.9.0~prerelease nightly (build 349).
I (perhaps mistakenly) believed that you were referring to the hashed commit Ids, rather than the monotonically increasing numbers you're referencing here. I agree that these numbers are more useful, and indicate actual changes. If this number can be included in the build in an easily referencable fashion then I agree that there is no need for the build date to be included. I would go so far as to request that this number be included in the file names for the dailies.
Thank you for explaining your thoughts in more detail. Doug --I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures. This message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not validate, please let me know how you received this message (direct, or to a list) and the mail software you use. Thanks!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ enigmail-users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or make changes to your subscription click here: https://admin.hostpoint.ch/mailman/listinfo/enigmail-users_enigmail.net
