"Vladimir Panteleev" <vladi...@thecybershadow.net> wrote in message news:op.vpv8w0pctuz...@cybershadow.mshome.net... > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:28:22 +0200, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote: > >> I don't understand why you think I'm claiming anything of the sort. > > I was under the impression you thought commit numbers somehow magically > propagated themselves throughout all clones of the repository ("distinct > repository was ambiguous"), since I saw no point in referring to a > revision number that's only valid for the copy on your hard drive. I > didn't think you implied the scenario of making your repository remotely > accessible. >
Well, normally there's at least *some* repository that's remotely accessible, otherwise nobody would (or even could) be doing any cloning or pulling or pushing (and you'd be left with a single-user private SVN with better merging). I agree that referring to a revision number that's only valid on your own local repo is of questionable benefit if it's not remotely accessible. However, I do think it makes sense to refer to a revision number on whatever remotely accessible repo inevitably does exist.