Hi, On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:36:47PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > So, really, rather than "time at which the tinderbox pulled", I argue > that "recorded commit time of the HEAD node" is a better identifier to > put in tarball names, about boxes, etc. It is really (within a > branch) a proper global version number, à la SVN revision.
Timesstamps are _not_ a valid reference to a source tree or order in DSCM.(*) Never. Not even on Sunday in moonlight. The only valid reference is the commit-id. IMHO this should really end the discussion right here. However, one consession that I think would be acceptable would be to make the commit-id in the about box a direct link to our cgit e.g.: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=1d1f049859e080b403c743f7e0604bd72475a824 After all, this is about development builds so we do not have to worry if these links become invalid some day in the far future if we change our infrastructure. Best, Bjoern (*) These timestamps are set locally on developer machines, which can their local time totally fubared. Using timestamps for this is nonsense. _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
