That makes sense. Thanks. -steve
On Sep 20, 2011, at 1:22 PM, James Laska wrote:
> I'm not entirely clear on the utility of the timestamp
portion of the package name.
I believe it's needed to ensure that a package built from git today, is
*always* newer than a package built from git yesterday. Since the
git-hash isn't sequential, it's possible that RPM will interpret an
older git-hash as a newer/higher %{release}. To that end, I guess
really only the date stamp is needed. However, I do appreciate having
the short git-hash included since that clearly ties back to a point in
git-history.