RFC: should we remind people to upgrade?

[Steve Borho]

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_bab at web.de>wrote:

> Am Sonntag, 23. Dezember 2012, 14:31:32 schrieb Matt Mackall:
> > Here's one way to do that:
> >
> > - check the timestamp on __version__.py
> > - if > 6 months, report in 'hg version' and tracebacks
> >
> >         $ touch -d "dec 1 2011" mercurial/__version__.py
> >         $ hg version
> >         Mercurial Distributed SCM (version
> 2.4.1+64-1c0dfd5f1357+20121222)
> >          please upgrade!
> >         (see http://mercurial.selenic.com for more information)
> >
> >         Copyright (C) 2005-2012 Matt Mackall and others
> >         This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
> There
> > is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
> > PURPOSE.
>
> I don’t like relying on the timestamp. There are too many ways that it
> could
> change without affecting mercurial in any other way.
>
> Since we’re on a timebased scheme, it would be easy to reconstruct the
> creation date directly from the version string, so the shortcut through the
> timestamp looks like a brittle hack to me.
>

FWIW: I have doubts that Python will be able to get a time stamp from the
frozen packages that are common on Windows, and so I would prefer an
alternative approach as well

<snip>

-- 
Steve Borho
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20121228/a5252c49/attachment.html>