"Kagamin" <s...@here.lot> wrote in message news:ihp46m$b3$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. > > LOL, this meaningless gibberish is usually called a unique identifier.
I don't care what it's called. *Both* of the above examples are obviously unique. Repo name + revision number *does* uniquey identify one and only one changeset. Are you deliberately missing that point?