Phillip J. Eby wrote: > Only if you do an "svn update" immediately after *every* "svn commit". > Otherwise, the code base reflected will be a version *before* your > changes. This is fragile, since not everyone will know (or remember!) > to do this.
That's true. It would be fairly reliable only for people without commit access (although they still could checkout different revisions for, say, Objects and Modules). A revision number can't take the fact into account that you may have local modifications, anyway. > Thus, I'm -1 on including a revision number that will be frequently > wrong (high *or* low) in practice. If it's too "expensive" to do it > right, it's *definitely* too expensive to do it wrong. :) Ok, understood. I'm -0 for this patch, because of the subtleties. I think I would be -1 for a patch that noticably increases the build time just to get some "better" single-revision number: that *still* won't tell you what precise sources had been used to build the binary, as different files simply can be on different revisions, and no single number, in whatever way computed, can give you full information. Regards, Martin _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
