"Kagamin" <s...@here.lot> wrote in message news:ihpjji$115f$1...@digitalmars.com... > Nick Sabalausky Wrote: > >> official public repo: r184 >> official public repo: r185 >> ...etc. >> >> Versus: >> >> 9f4e5ac4f0a3 >> 13cf8da225ce >> ...etc. >> >> I don't know about other people, but I find the former to be far more >> readable, far more descriptive, and actually possible to reason about. >> Sure, >> the latter can be copy-pasted and it still refers to the same changeset, >> but >> other then that it's meaningless gibberish. > > A little example: today I commited changeset 35912, and 35780 - 10 day > ago. Try to recall these random-looking numbers after reading a couple of > posts in this NG.
1. That's obviously a *lot* easier than 9f4e5ac4f0a3 and 13cf8da225ce 2. 35912 and 35780 are obviously related to each other in a certain way. I can tell just buy glancing that 35912 is a little over 100 commits after 35780. And I can immediately tell that they're both *far* newer than, say, 243. And far older than, say, 54928. Try doing that with hashes.