[haiku-development] Re: Mercurial version string Was:Re: Re: VOTE: Git or Mercurial (hg) as Haiku's new source control tool

  • From: Jon Yoder <darkwyrm@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 22:15:37 -0400

On 05/12/2011 09:39 AM, Ingo Weinhold wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2011 07:26:17 -0400 Jon Yoder<darkwyrm@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 05/12/2011 06:26 AM, Ingo Weinhold wrote:
I'm still fan of the comparable revision number idea. Maybe the
date
part
can be extended by another component to make it unique? E.g.
"2011-05-11-13" would denote the 13th changeset that day. Would
that be possible?
I am, too. Another possibility would be to include the time down to
the nanosecond level -- something like `date -u
"+%Y-%m-%d-%k:%M.%N"` could get the job in a way that is quite
readable and may not even need to include the hash itself. Just my
$0.02.

Do the tools even store times with that precision? At least a simple
"log" only produces full seconds with either. git's --date=raw option
(which I'd expect to show what is actually stored) produces what
looks like a number of seconds since some point in time.
I use Mercurial all the time, but I don't go too far in depth typically so I can't say for sure, but I doubt it. I was thinking more along the lines of adding a tag to each revision with the output of the date command. It could offer sufficient precision that including the hash would be unnecessary. I could just be completely out in left field on this one, but it was just a thought.

--Jon

Other related posts: