Hi Petr > Hmm, we check out the five repositories one by one. It might take some > time if you have slower network connection. There might be more commits > in the other repositories in the meantime => the question is what time > to use. We might end up with 5 times in the end, e.g.: > > 41491491-41491527-41491568-41491597-41491613 > > It is quite complex in the end. Also, it would be hard for developers to > get the corresponding commit from it. That is why I suggested to established a different "birth" date for each repository. If we established a 2 day interval since TDF's birthday, then you would have 414.91491-412.91491-410.91491-408.91491-406.91491 Because the part before the point means days, a build from the following day would be (assuming there were changes only to the core) 415.67866-412.91491-410.91491-408.91491-406.91491 I.e. you only need to read the first 3 digits to realize if it's older or newer. Even better: because the fraction part after the point is also time, you know that any value below 0.5 is before noon and any value greater is between noon and midnight. <div class='shrinkable-quote'> > I see the following needs and solutions: > > > + easily match about dialog with downloaded tarball > > => we need to use the same string in both > > I would add one more line with a time generated by configure > to the about dialog. The same time should be used in the > download tarball name </div> That would be an easier solution. And human readable. > + easily match build with git commit > > => keep the git IDs in about dialog My suggestion was to replace the git IDs altogether with the age system. This solves the potential problem of the truncated 7 digits of the SHA repeating sometime in the future and it is human readable. But this is secondary if the date-time code is added to the about box and to the tarball name (or Windows installer ;) ) > + human readable string for official builds for normal users: > > => I would add one more line, .e.g. 3.5.0-beta1 > it will be used only in the official builds generated from > release tarballs or release tags Couldn't agree more! > > Does it make sense? Yes. I think that covers all problems. Best regards, Pedro <hr align="left" width="300" /> View this message in context: <a href="http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Naming-builds-Please-tp3556898p3561557.html">Re: [Libreoffice-qa] Naming builds. Please???</a> Sent from the <a href="http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Dev-f1639786.html">Dev mailing list archive</a> at Nabble.com.