Re: [Libreoffice] Naming builds. Please???

On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 02:30:07AM -0800, Pedro wrote:

> Stephan Bergmann-2 wrote

> > Using pretty-printed dates would make it easier to disambiguate the
> > seven-letter commit ID prefixes to the complete IDs (the commit
> > date would help narrow done in which commit range to look for the
> > given prefix).

> May I argue that the Age code I propose on this topic fixes that
> problem?

> Since it is an age, there is no chance that in the future the code will
> repeat itself.

You may have missed that my "seconds since the epoch" (in my example:
1321480648) is also an age, and has mostly the same properties. It is
somewhat longer than your format, since it takes an earlier epoch (the
standard Unix epoch, 1 Jan 1970).

I don't care strongly which epoch we take; IMHO the Unix epoch is a bit
easier to handle since standard tools already know this format, but
that's a pretty minor point. <shrug>

As to the question of pretty-printed date or "linear time / age",
well... pretty-printed date is human-readable and familiar, but more
complicated for my brain to read: 6 numbers instead of one. Then,
pretty-printed date is easier (even for my brain) to *memorise*. I
fear it is a question of taste. Formally, they give the same
disambiguation power.

-- 
Lionel