>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dodier <robert.dodier at gmail.com> writes:
Robert> I guess so. I'm inclined to avoid putting in a lot of tags
Robert> which have only temporary usefulness. That might be
Robert> resolved in a couple of ways --
Robert> (1) avoid tags by never incrementing the subminor number,
Robert> (2) increment the number, put in the tags,
Robert> but remove them after the next release,
Robert> (3) increment the number, don't make a tag, use timestamps
Robert> to get files corresponding to a subminor revision number.
Robert> (4) increment the number, make a tag, just live with lots of tags.
Robert> At this point I don't have a strong preference.
Robert> (1) is/was the status quo ante, which I'm not entirely
Robert> happy about, but as you've pointed out (3) has problems.
If, in (2), "remove them" means remove the tags, then I would say
that's a very bad idea. Once tags go in, they should stay there
(barring stupid mistakes, of course).
Given the current rate of development (3) isn't so bad because there's
a good chance that when the version is updated, it's probably the only
change (or related set of small changes) for that day. So using dates
is a little troublesome but not bad. My problem is that I can't ever
remember what the date is, and how the date I pick relates to what the
date is on the server, especially if the date is near midnight local
time.
I can live with lots of tags, if we make all of the tags have the same
prefix or something so it's easy to tell.
Option (1) has it's own problems too if the releases are far apart but
we ask people to build and use cvs versions. It becomes a pain to
figure out what version they're using.
So, I think I'd prefer (4), but (3) is ok.
Ray