Re: .version and .tarball-version, git-version-gen

[Bruno Haible]

Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> If I pass a package to you with the name 'coreutils-X.Y-dirty.tar.xz',
> then what would that tell you?  You cannot know and reproduce what it
> consists of.
> 
> But if I commit my local change, and pass to you that patch and a
> package coreutils-9.6-8-gfbfd886e5, then one has a chance to know.

>From the perspective of the receiver of that tarball, a suffix "-modified"
or a suffix "-dirty" or a commit hash that is not published all have the
same meaning.

But from the perspective of the developer, there's a difference: Why
force a shaming term on a developer that makes adaptations?

> Anyway, the term "-dirty" comes from an underlying tool we're using,
> so I'm wondering if discussing about it in gnulib is the right place.
> We're just the messenger.

The term "-dirty" comes from git, yes. But git does establish naming
conventions for tarballs; that's Gnulib, through 'git-version-gen', which
does that. Therefore my proposal to change git-version-gen, to add a suffix
"-modified" instead of "-dirty".

Bruno