Re: [PATCH] Add sequence number to 'xm info'

[Dan Smith <danms@us.ibm.com>]

HB> +If you want to compare two changesets, you already have the full
HB> +date right in front of you!

That's true.

HB> The revision number is a convenience for *local* operations, for
HB> example 'hg export 7033:7035'. It obviously should never be
HB> compared across different repositories "and just hope things work
HB> out ok."

I completely agree and understand.  Telling someone to try to resolve
their problem by checking out changeset 7033 would be a bad idea.
However, if we're talking about loosely grouping and sorting a month's
worth of test reports to make a determination about failure trends, I
think it's a valid way to do it.  It's quick and it doesn't require
any parsing of the date string.

Also, when I'm comparing two of my test machines to see which is
running a newer pull, I have to parse the date string with my eyes and
do timezone conversions to figure out the order.  Since my (and most,
I imagine) test machines are always running clones of the main repo,
the sequence numbers would always be valid.

Independent of how people choose to use the information, is there a
strong argument for not even showing it?

-- 
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
Open Hypervisor Team
email: danms@us.ibm.com