Can revisions also have approximate version # on SF?

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:10 AM, Leo Butler <l.butler at ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2011, Karl-Dieter Crisman 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."
>
> The vcs already does most of this for you, and you don't
> need to have checked out the CVS repo.
>
> You can view this information online by going to
> http://maxima.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/maxima/maxima/
>
> choose the src folder, then sin.lisp. This brings you to
> a page with all the information you want.
>

I understand that I can view this if I want to dig far enough and
understand how revision systems work.  My points are:

1) It's a nontrivial amount of work to find this until one has done it
several times (and even there it's not clear exactly what is going on
with 5.23 versus 5.23.1 or 5.23.2, one would have to know how the
Maxima numbering scheme works, which I don't)
2) For someone unacquainted with the concept of a repository or source
changes - presumably a nontrivial number of users - there is no way
they will have a clue when to expect this to show up in a binary they
can download.

Maybe there is a way to tell SF to automatically create a link to the
revision log for a given file whenever it sees "Fixed in ...
foo.lisp"?

Anyway, just food for thought.  Thanks!