Use <old_version>+r<commit> for $quickly share

Bug #593404 reported by Frederik Elwert on 2010-06-13
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone

Bug Description

There was some confusion about the version numbers "$quickly share" creates. didrocks suggested using "<old_version>+r<commit>", which might be clearer.

Related branches

Didier Roche (didrocks) on 2010-06-13
Changed in quickly:
status: New → Triaged
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
Umang Varma (umang) wrote :

Assigning to myself. Will fix once I am able to upload to LP without manually messing with files (Bug #608191 - I could assign that to myself as well if we decide to go with the second option)

Changed in quickly:
assignee: nobody → Umang Varma (umang)
Umang Varma (umang) on 2010-07-23
Changed in quickly:
status: Triaged → In Progress
Umang Varma (umang) wrote :

Sorry for not being able to do anything for a while. I should be able to fix this soon.

It's been a while and I've forgotten what we'd decided as our final choice for the version format when there are multiple shares for the same revision number. IIRC, appending date/time to the revision number was what we decided on.

Didier, could you confirm if this is correct?

Didier Roche (didrocks) wrote :
Download full text (7.3 KiB)

No worry Umang :)
No, we didn't decide that, here is the backlog of our conversation:

2010-08-05 12:53:05 umang didrocks, I didn't quite understand your comment in the merge proposal
2010-08-05 12:53:15 didrocks umang: ok so
2010-08-05 12:53:29 didrocks umang: I think with this scheme, we should forget about -public1,2,3…
2010-08-05 12:53:50 didrocks we should only use:
2010-08-05 12:54:09 didrocks <previous_rev>+r<rev>-<time>
2010-08-05 12:54:15 didrocks like
2010-08-05 12:55:01 didrocks 10.04+r54-1008051254
2010-08-05 12:55:10 didrocks for 10/08/05 at 12:54
2010-08-05 12:55:22 didrocks this way, someone can share multiple time the same commit
2010-08-05 12:55:23 umang didrocks, I've not got the time part as yet, but there's still "-public" in the code to remove "-public" if it is already there.
2010-08-05 12:55:26 didrocks (not sue if we want that)
2010-08-05 12:55:34 didrocks yeah
2010-08-05 12:55:49 didrocks in fact, I'm not sure that -public means something to people
2010-08-05 12:56:06 didrocks hence the idea of <time> which can be more meaningful
2010-08-05 12:56:11 didrocks I don't know, it's just a rough idea :)
2010-08-05 12:56:12 umang i.e. if it was already 10.04-public5, it should now remove -public5 and just become 10.04-r54-1008051254
2010-08-05 12:56:33 didrocks well, it should never adds public now, yeah
2010-08-05 12:56:41 didrocks what do you think?
2010-08-05 12:56:56 didrocks and no double -
2010-08-05 12:57:03 didrocks dpkg doesn't support it
2010-08-05 12:57:08 umang didrocks, I think i'm confused.
2010-08-05 12:57:17 umang didrocks, yes, no double -
2010-08-05 12:57:19 didrocks so 10.04+r54-1008051254
2010-08-05 12:57:21 umang :p my mistake
2010-08-05 12:57:27 didrocks on what are you confused?
2010-08-05 12:58:12 umang didrocks, I like what you are saying and agree about 10.04+r54-1008051254. I'm just confused about whether we should remove a -public if it is already in the version.
2010-08-05 12:59:15 didrocks umang: -public was just to enable people using quickly share multiple time
2010-08-05 12:59:16 umang didrocks, if you have my branch somewhere look at line 345 in internal/
2010-08-05 12:59:25 didrocks I know your branch :)
2010-08-05 12:59:35 didrocks here, if they do:
2010-08-05 12:59:38 didrocks quickly share
2010-08-05 12:59:43 didrocks they get 10.04+r54-1008051254
2010-08-05 12:59:49 didrocks if they do quickly share again
2010-08-05 12:59:53 didrocks 10.04+r54-1008051256
2010-08-05 12:59:54 didrocks for instance
2010-08-05 12:59:59 didrocks so different numbers
2010-08-05 13:00:04 didrocks but that's probably a dummy idea
2010-08-05 13:00:07 umang didrocks, yes I like that.
2010-08-05 13:00:09 didrocks keep -public so
2010-08-05 13:00:22 didrocks 10.04+r54-public1
2010-08-05 13:00:24 didrocks ...


Umang Varma (umang) wrote :

I have been very busy and am unlikely to find the time to work on this. Sorry about the delay, I didn't notice that I was still assigned to this bug.

Changed in quickly:
assignee: Umang Varma (umang) → nobody
status: In Progress → Confirmed
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers