Bernhard Voelker wrote: > If I pass a package to you with the name 'coreutils-X.Y-dirty.tar.xz', > then what would that tell you? You cannot know and reproduce what it > consists of. > > But if I commit my local change, and pass to you that patch and a > package coreutils-9.6-8-gfbfd886e5, then one has a chance to know.
>From the perspective of the receiver of that tarball, a suffix "-modified" or a suffix "-dirty" or a commit hash that is not published all have the same meaning. But from the perspective of the developer, there's a difference: Why force a shaming term on a developer that makes adaptations? > Anyway, the term "-dirty" comes from an underlying tool we're using, > so I'm wondering if discussing about it in gnulib is the right place. > We're just the messenger. The term "-dirty" comes from git, yes. But git does establish naming conventions for tarballs; that's Gnulib, through 'git-version-gen', which does that. Therefore my proposal to change git-version-gen, to add a suffix "-modified" instead of "-dirty". Bruno
