Hi Michael, Michael Hudson [2007-07-05 9:02 +0100]: > > Why are these timestamps and hashes necessary? URLs like this don't > > look very stable, > > Actually, they are more stable that a URL based on revision numbers, > because revision numbers aren't stable in the face of --push-overwrite.
Hm, but in the case of --overwrite you cannot gurarantee anything anyway, can you? I think using --overwrite should generally be avoided on public branches. > > http://codebrowse.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/restricted-manager/trunk/revision/124 > > Did you try that? It actually works, though there's no way at all to > find this out... No, I didn't actually try it, I just made it up on the fly. It's really cool that it actually works! > Again, > http://codebrowse.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev/restricted-manager/trunk/annotate/head:/setup.py Splendid, thanks! > These alternate urls have been possible for a while now, but probably > what should change is that codebrowse should generate them. This isn't > going to be totally trivial, loggerhead works internally with rev- and > file-ids for good reasons, but it should probably be done. I agree, that would be really nice. Thanks a lot, Martin -- Martin Pitt http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com Debian Developer http://www.debian.org -- launchpad-users mailing list launchpad-users@lists.canonical.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/launchpad-users
