"Lutger Blijdestijn" <lutger.blijdest...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ihnkgk$g8d$1...@digitalmars.com... > Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > > ... >> >>> You can't expect other people to piece together how the >>> revision number has come to be, that is extremely brittle. >>> >> >> They don't need to piece it together because you can just say... >> >> ...which repository you're talking about. >> ...which repository you're talking about. >> ...which repository you're talking about. >> . >> . >> . >> . >> ...which repository you're talking about. >> . >> . >> . >> . >> . > > ok ok ok ok ok I get it. I spend some quality time with google and have > found this: > > $ git describe --tags > > phobos-2.046-664-g938e1cc > > > So phobos is at the 664th commit since 2.046 > > > http://gitfu.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/git-describe-great-another-way-to- > refer-to-commits/ >
Ahh, now *that's* nice. All it needs now (and maybe it already has it) is to allow something like "detailedtag{local:phobos-2.046-664}" in place of hashes or HEAD@{7} and have it just figure out and use the hash by itself.