Re: Re: include revision number in sig class

Does everyone start with rev0 on their current sig (with rev1?). Will any change mean a new revision number?

I had envisioned any change bumping the revision number. No opinion on the rev0 or rev1 (or even pure numeric 0 or 1) but everyone would start the same.

Comment on Re: Re: include revision number in sig class

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: include revision number in sig class by demerphq (Chancellor) on Jan 23, 2004 at 19:56 UTC
I hate to say, but I very much doubt that this will happen. FWICT it would require a new field in the DB, and frankly for minimal utility. And I say this from the POV that I am almost certainly going to be the one who patches it next. To be honest, I dont even want to support Aristotles "two-classes-in-one" tags. But maybe a god will see your request and do the required DB stuff and then itll happen, but they have an awful lot of other stuff to do thats higher priority. Sorry bud. It is a good idea on paper at least, but... --- demerphq _{First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi}	[reply] [d/l]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: include revision number in sig class
by demerphq (Chancellor) on Jan 23, 2004 at 19:56 UTC

I hate to say, but I very much doubt that this will happen. FWICT it would require a new field in the DB, and frankly for minimal utility. And I say this from the POV that I am almost certainly going to be the one who patches it next. To be honest, I dont even want to support Aristotles "two-classes-in-one" tags.

But maybe a god will see your request and do the required DB stuff and then itll happen, but they have an awful lot of other stuff to do thats higher priority.

Sorry bud. It is a good idea on paper at least, but...

---
demerphq

_{First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

-- Gandhi}

[reply]
[d/l]