Daniel Veditz wrote: > It's not a matter of breaking the spec, the spec is silent about what to do > with branches and needs to be extended. With 1.0 staring us in the face now > would be a very good time to figure it out.
So let me throw out some alternates using Netscape 6.2 as an example. as shipped: Gecko/20011019 some alternatives to get the juices flowing: Gecko/20010904.45 // pulled 45 days into a branch Gecko/20010904:20011019 // pulled 10/19 from a 9/4 branch Gecko/20011019 (rv:0.9.4) // pulled 10/19 based on 0.9.4 Gecko/0.9.4.20011019 // ditto With a major branch like 1.0 it's possible there will be minor shipping branchlets off of it, so any proposal should try to deal with this. I believe all but the second above could be made to work, though the last two might be least ugly in that case. The third has the disadvantage of putting significant differences into what is technically supposed to be a comment field (unlike the fourth option), although it is the least change from the current spec. The first and fourth make it easy to compare two builds along a branch, and to compare a branch build to a trunk build. The first is the most compact form except maybe for the third if the rv: field is removed from the Mozilla token comment. -Dan Veditz
