On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:46:17 -0700 James McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hin-Tak Leung wrote: > > --- On Sun, 28/9/08, Jeremy White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snipped> > > > > The con is actually less trouble than you think - if somebody reports > > a bug against CVS/GIT, it would be reasonable to assume that the > > report date is within a day or two compared to the git > > clone/rebase-origin date. Other use of GIT (the kernel) report-date is > > not very indicative of the state of the tree, but since only one > > person has commit-rights in wine, the report-date is a good indicator > > of a specific few commits. > > > There is a problem with using CVS/GIT and that is we are ASSUMING that > the version used is only a couple of days old, it could be as much as a > week old. I prefer reports against valid and released versions as > problems found with a commit may be fixed with another corrective commit > (this has happened several times in the last year.) > > +1 to NO CVS/GIT and NO CVS/GIT reporting in Bugzilla, unless we are > going to do build numbers based upon the day of build. > > James McKenzie > > Why not offer version + (GIT) e.g "1.1.5 GIT" or e.g "1.1.5+" ? And to pick it offer a combo box "Release" or "Git" then you pick your wine version.