On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 23:08:13 +0200, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
Browsing through http://hginit.com/index.html, it looks like with Hg,
everything works just as well as with SVN, the only difference being that
you need to remember to specify which repository you're talking about
whenever you give a number.
Not just what repository, but what clone of the repository! It's explained
in http://hginit.com/05.html. The number only makes sense for the clone of
the repository you're working on right now - basically you can't tell that
number to anyone, because it might mean something entirely different for
them.
Obviously I'm not saying "DMD should have gone Hg", I'm just kinda
shocked
by how horrid Git's approach is for referring to changesets. (Personally,
that alone would be enough to get me to use Hg instead of Git for my own
projects. Heck, I've become pretty much sold on the idea of DVCS, but
because of this I think I'd actually sooner use SVN for a new project
than
Git.)
I think you need to take some time and think about it. It's impossible to
use a global incrementing revision number with any DVCS! In fact, I dare
to think that Hg having revision numbers is a stupid mistake that tries to
make SVN users comfy, but will only lead to confusion and angst when
people try to refer to revisions by their "number".
Additionally, Hg's approach provides a trivial way to disambiguate hash
collisions. I know that Git book brushes it off as "very rare", but it's
not
as if nobody's ever going to run into it.
Um, what method is that? Also, saying that SHA-1 hash collisions are "very
rare" is a bit of an understatement.
--
Best regards,
Vladimir mailto:vladi...@thecybershadow.net
