[Bug 201674] Review Request: codeblocks

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: codeblocks


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201674





------- Additional Comments From dan at danny.cz  2006-08-13 07:07 EST -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> > I think that for SVN repos there should be possible to use
> > revision number. With CVS there is no such possibility so the
> > dates must be used.
> 
> Not true. Surely you could check out from CVS using a branch tag
> or revision.

I meant situation between tagged revisions as the tags in CVS are not usually
created after every commited change.

> 
> Please use the date for SVN checks, too, and optionally put the
> revision number at the right. Like:
> 
>   codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060731svn.src.rpm
> or:
>   codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060731svn2824.src.rpm

OK, I will use the above (date + rev)

> or:
>   codeblocks-1.0-0.1.20060803cvs.src.rpm
> 
> There is no necessity to squeeze SVN revision numbers or CVS tags/revs
> into the package Release. Instead, add a comment in your spec on how
> to check out the included source code.
> 
> The most interesting information about pre-releases is the date, which
> is independent from whether the source is maintained in SVN or CVS or
> a different VCS.

Using the date versus revision depends on the the style of upstream development.
And I see using the revisions useful as the revision is exact identification of
the development state and should be visible. When placed in the spec file, it
would be hidden from most users.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.