I like dates in "rolling release" version strings because they immediately tell you how old/new the version is, but I can certainly live with that format too. Definitely better than what we have.
- Taylan On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 3:02 PM Marius Bakke <mba...@fastmail.com> wrote: > > swedebugia <swedebu...@riseup.net> writes: > > > On 2018-12-25 20:49, Taylan Kammer wrote: > >> Currently, after running 'guix pull', the Guix version will be reported > >> by 'guix --version' as something like: > >> > >> 522d1b87bc88dd459ade51b1ee0545937da8d3b5 > >> > >> I think it would be really nice if instead it were something like: > >> > >> 2018-12-25-522d1b > >> > >> where the date is the commit's date (year, month, day) in UTC+0. > >> > >> That's shorter, more descriptive, and just as unique. (The chances of > >> there being two commits in the same day with the same first 6 positions > >> in the hash should be negligient.) > >> > >> The package name is currently something like: > >> > >> guix-522d1b87b > >> > >> That could become: > >> > >> guix-2018-12-25-522d1b > >> > >> which is a bit longer but more descriptive. > >> > >> I looked into guix/self.scm a bit but couldn't easily tell how difficult > >> it would be to implement these changes. > >> > >> Thoughts? Worth it? > > > > I think it is worth it, in fact I was on my way to suggest the same. > > I like the "git describe" format: > > $ git describe > v0.16.0-414-ge99d036828 > > It does not mention a date, but it can be copy-pasted into "git" and > shows how many commits there were between each generation.
