From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5894fe67040038b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-25 18:30:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Attributes 'Version and 'Body_Version Date: 25 Nov 2001 18:30:18 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0111251830.61aaa6be@posting.google.com> References: <9s9iti$g$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5ee5b646.0111081953.31e2633c@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0111121351.27897bc4@posting.google.com> <9trpj1$4e6v2$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1006741818 14657 127.0.0.1 (26 Nov 2001 02:30:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Nov 2001 02:30:18 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16963 Date: 2001-11-26T02:30:18+00:00 List-Id: "Nick Roberts" wrote in message news:<9trpj1$4e6v2$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>... > I think there's some mileage in the idea that it might be useful for > 'Version and 'Body_Version to (be able to) return something more than just a > checksum (or the like). <> I am not sure I understand what on earth Nick was talking about here, but for sure it has nothing to do with the existing attributes (*) I think what happens here is that people see the word Version, and it triggers all kinds of entirely irrelevant baggage. The idea is that if two partitions share a package, and communicate in a way that uses this package, they need a way to make sure that they are using the same *compiled* version of the package. How this is guaranteed will depend on the system. For example, in a conventional Ada 83 style library system, it will be good enough to store a precise enough time stamp of the time of compilation, since two packages can only have the same time of compilation in such a system if they are indeed the same (and depend on all the same packages). This is the *very limited* intention of these attributes, they are not in any sense relevant for the purposes of general version control, let alone the more extensive ideas that Nick presents. If any of these extended ideas have merit, I would suggest completely disentangling them from the existing attributes, starting by using entirely different names, otherwise you will perpetuate the confusion. (*) by the way, MD-5 hash codes are indeed used to guarantee getting the right version of things on the internet (have a look at the Farber True Names patent for details of the idea).