From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Smith Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add sequence number to 'xm info' Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:05:48 -0700 Message-ID: <8764sjluzn.fsf@us.ibm.com> References: <87r7b8x1kh.fsf@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Hollis Blanchard's message of "Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:45:32 -0500") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Hollis Blanchard Cc: Xen Developers List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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