Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote: >On 07/02/2014 10:38 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >> no it wont, we use the tag that matches upstream's release stamp, so >> will stay 1406 > >This is a great example of why the date scheme is much better than the >old one - it clearly reflects the state of code inside the release. > >If we were to now roll in all the ZD+later updates, we'd have marked it >1407, but since it reflects the codebase from 14 06, its tagg'ed 1406. Sorry, I still don't get it. A tag of 0 also clearly reflects the state of the code inside the release. In what way is the date scheme better? The amount of additional information it conveys is minimal: I almost never need to know when a particular update was released. And to convert back to the update number one has to refer to a table on the website. It has been said that there's no problem in computer science that can't be solved by an additional level of indirection. I don't understand what problem is being solved here. Ron