One more interesting response, maybe worth looking into.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Pierre-Yves David
<pierre-yves.da...@logilab.fr> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 03:17:36PM -0500, Benjamin Fritz wrote:
>
>> Yes, this is the case. It is somewhat strange (especially in the
>> open-source world) but it is what it is. Bram is the
>> benevolent-dictator-for-life of Vim and still maintains it by
>> accepting patch files from Vim community (in pretty much any format
>> but normally in Mercurial's nowadays) and then releasing each coherent
>> change as a patch which he also happens to apply and keep in
>> Mercurial. The nice thing is that within Vim's internal scripting
>> language you can check for not only a specific version but also a very
>> specific "patch level" using something like "v:version == 703 &&
>> has('patch219')" for the specific changeset you quote. Due to this
>> release strategy, it's convenient to be able to refer to specific
>> changesets by version ID. But since there are not a bunch of
>> intermediate changesets, tagging each one still only results in a few
>> hundred tags per major version, rather that the hundreds of thousands
>> you indicated would cause a problem.
>
> You might consider using and extension digging into a revision content to
> *generate* this "patch-version" number instead of tagging every single
> changetset.
>
> --
> Pierre-Yves David
>
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
