Re: 297 all good.

[Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ray Andrews wrote on Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 20:50:37 -0800:
> On 02/12/2015 08:09 PM, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Bart Schaefer
> ><schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>On Feb 12,  5:27pm, Ray Andrews wrote:
> >>} (BTW I trust eg: '297' is a unique ID for each build?)
> >>
> >>Sort of.  It's the number of commits since some flag point (the 5.0.7
> >>release, in this case).  So it'll be unique until after the next such
> >>flag point (probably 5.0.8).
> >This also assumes you don't have any local commits. The actually
> >unique identifier for the commit comes after the g at the end. (It's
> >just the first few digits of the commit hash).
> >
> Ok, good to know, I'm just looking for the briefest effective way of
> referring to this build or that build. The 'commitnumber' is nicely
> sequential and simple, so that should do unless I hear different.

Please don't report bare numbers.  Converting a number like '297' to a
form git understands is ambiguous and a little work.  Instead, report a
revision hash, an X-Seq number (in the commit message), or the value of
$ZSH_PATCHLEVEL.

The X-Seq number is unambiguous even if you have local commits on that
branch that aren't upstream.

Thanks,

Daniel