Rockbox "current build" new STRANGE naming convention (since the SVN/Git switch)

[pihhu]

Hi!

Before switching to git, RB "current builds" had naming convention in this style: rxxxxxx-date for example
r31444-20120101. It was clear and legible, you knew which build was newer/older by looking at that number,

Since the switch to git, build names look like this: feef422, 9a4656b, 63ddd15 etc etc (taken from this page: http://build.rockbox.org/dev.cgi ). They look like some 7-letter hex numbers. It looks quite unclear and illegible to me: for example I don't know which build is newer/older, there's no sense of continuation between them like before etc.

Q: is this new obscure naming convention of "current" builds of RB just temporary, and do you plan to revert to the old one? Or is it to stay for longer, in which case I'd like you to consider dropping it, and come back to old, 100x better (IMO) naming convention. The current (nomen omen) one is too obscure and unclear, IMO.

ps hope I posted in ok forum for such topics, if not, please feel free to move it.

regards

[pihhu]

test

... something is wrong with this thread. Today I couldn't find it in topic list, only found it via url in my browser history, and added "test" reply and it re-appeared. And now I see there are 2 replies to it (including this very post), and one is "hidden". What is going on?

@mods: if I posted in wrong forum, please move it to a more appropraite one, and notify me via PM, so I can find it. Thanks!

[gevaerts]

... something is wrong with this thread. Today I couldn't find it in topic list, only found it via url in my browser history, and added "test" reply and it re-appeared. And now I see there are 2 replies to it (including this very post), and one is "hidden". What is going on?

This is due to some bugs in the spam filtering we use on the forums. Basically if a spammer replies to a thread and we delete the (intercepted) spam, the thread gets hidden. We're working to resolve this.

[gevaerts]

And to reply to your original question too (now that it has reappeared so I could see it...)

Q: is this new obscure naming convention of "current" builds of RB just temporary, and do you plan to revert to the old one? Or is it to stay for longer, in which case I'd like you to consider dropping it, and come back to old, 100x better (IMO) naming convention. The current (nomen omen) one is too obscure and unclear, IMO.

The way git works makes it impossible to have unambiguous universal revision numbers the way svn has. We do plan to reintroduce some sort of numbering for exactly the reasons you mentioned, but we haven't entirely decided yet what the best way is to generate the numbers.

[pihhu]

Thanks for the reply and clarification, gevaerts!

I'm glad that you guys do plan to change it and reintroduce human-friendly format of revision naming, because as I had said, I think the current one is plain awful/bad for reasons stated above.

cheers!

[pihhu]

disappeared again!

"Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic."

uhm.. what?

[gevaerts]

Yes, same issue I think.

We're pretty sure we know what's going on, and the fix is ready, but the person who can install it probably can't do it before early next week.