Oh, but it is in the inbox already,
the reaction of Eliot made me think it wasn't.
apologies for my own confusion!

Le jeu. 14 févr. 2019 à 10:12, Nicolas Cellier <
nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> a écrit :

>
>
> Le jeu. 14 févr. 2019 à 10:06, Jakob Reschke <forums.jakob at resfarm.de> a
> écrit :
>
>> Should the numbers be relevant at all, except for human recognizing
>> maybe? All that should count internally is the ancestry anyway. And the
>> versions already have UUIDs, what more do they need.
>>
>> exactly! this number is for humans only and 10 significand digits kust
> does not work.
>
> Git has not had consecutive numbers for more than 13 years and it works
>> quite well... Mercurial does have them, but does not rely on them and the
>> are assigned differently in each clone.
>>
>> Fortunately, there are explicit branch names for helping us sorting out
> the graph layout (make a mental image of it).
> But they are not necessary for git tools, just for us humans.
>
> Am Do., 14. Feb. 2019, 05:24 hat Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com>
>> geschrieben:
>>
>>> HI Eliot,
>>>
>>> > > On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > What are the two most-important properties we want from our
>>> > > versionNumber?  Monotonicity and uniqueness.  The current scheme only
>>> > > provides the former, this uses DateAndTime now utcMicroseconds to
>>> > > provide the latter, too.  As a bonus it also happens to encode the
>>> > > save timestamp into the VersionName, so available without having to
>>> > > open the file.
>>> > >
>>> > > I admit it looks intimidating given what we're used to seeing, but
>>> > > what of the added safety and utility?
>>> >
>>> > It is trumped by the illegibility.
>>>
>>> Not as bad as it appears, since the high-order digits will be the same
>>> between version #'s, plus, second-resolution should be sufficient, so
>>> versions in a list would actually look like this:
>>>
>>>     Monticello-cmm-1550203798
>>>     Monticello-cmm-1550117398
>>>     Monticello-cmm-1550030998
>>>
>>> Whilst still retaining all of the utility.  Maybe even a setting in
>>> the tools could hide the high-order digits in the UI if we wanted...
>>> We're already into 4 digits in our version #'s anyway so....
>>>
>>> > When was the discussion around this change?
>>>
>>> You're participating in it now.   :)
>>>
>>> There was another change to earlier today that you may be interested
>>> in asking that question about too, since it changed 19-year old
>>> SequenceableCollection>>#= with a one-day old replacement and actually
>>> went into trunk.  This one is in the Inbox.
>>>
>>> > I’ve been out if things (apologies) but I find this change quite
>>> horrible.
>>>
>>> I understand this initial gut reaction, but I hope you'll think and
>>> sleep on it, and help think about the problem and some alternative
>>> solutions you like better.  VersionName uniqueness is important for
>>> the Monticello model.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>   Chris
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20190214/b6838070/attachment.html>