Can revisions also have approximate version # on SF?

Thanks, that would help us a lot.  With a 'commit group' it's harder
to police that, obviously, but it would be much appreciated.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Robert Dodier <robert.dodier at gmail.com> wrote:
> Makes sense to me. I'll try to remember to do it,
> maybe others will too.
>
> best
>
> Robert Dodier
>
> On 3/15/11, Karl-Dieter Crisman <kcrisman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I made a duplicate bug report on the SF site, unknowingly (well, it's
>> hard to search for math operators). ?No big deal - I closed it; but
>> when I see that the original problem is fixed, all that bug report
>> says is "Fixed in sin.lisp rev 1.82."
>>
>> That's not too helpful for someone wondering in what 'official'
>> version of Maxima that might appear in. ?Might it be possible for
>> people to put that in their descriptions? ?E.g., "Fixed in sin.lisp
>> rev 1.82, part of development branch x.y.z."
>>
>> That would be immensely helpful for our (Sage) use, since we are
>> depending on upstream for functionality, but perhaps even for the
>> casual observer who sees a bug, wants it fixed, but then doesn't know
>> when to download it (let's assume that our observer does not know how
>> to use CVS or whatever, as many mathematical software users won't).
>>
>> Thanks for thinking about it!
>> _______________________________________________
>> Maxima mailing list
>> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
>> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>>
>