On 1/24/11 10:20 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Does Git really not have real revision/changeset numbers?
[…]
Not that I've actually used DVCSes much yet, but my understanding is that
the same can be set of Hg and yet Hg handles revision/changeset numbers just
fine. The nice things (plural) about those is that they're both readable and
comparable.
Hg has no »real revision/changeset numbers« either – there is a
more-or-less-monotonic number assigned to the various changesets, but
it's only valid for a single, *local* checkout, using them e.g. in a NG
post would be a very wrong thing to do
(http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/RevisionNumber).
Git supports a relative notation as well, which is what I personally
want to use most of the time anyway (e.g. HEAD^, master~4, something@{"1
year ago"}, …). You don't have to specify the full SHA-1 hash either, as
long as it is still unambiguous – for example, you could just refer to
the 2.051 version mentioned above as »1374« to save typing.
David
