On Thu, Nov 28, 2024 at 10:44:40AM +0100, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Otto Kekäläinen <o...@debian.org> writes: > > >> The commit hash. 007c9af. > > > > OK, thanks. > > > > I disagree here - to me the git commit hash is the single most > > important identifier for the software version if there are no actual > > releases. > > FWIW, I used to believe the same but this changed my mind -- gnulib is a > rolling stable package with no releases: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1069268#10 > > I believe versions numbers are for humans; incremental integers, dates > and possibly semantic versioning are useful ideas. I don't object to a > git commit identifier in a version number, but I also wouldn't want to > enforce it as a general rule. For gnulib I settled on recording the > full git commit identifier in debian/changelog instead.
This bug report makes a good point that version should be kept to be copy-pastable and comparable by humans. By itself, the git commit hash does not provide any information without a copy of the git repository. debian/changelog should be sufficient for that purpose. Cheers, -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
