"Vladimir Panteleev" <vladi...@thecybershadow.net> wrote in message news:op.vpxo9jz4tuz...@cybershadow.mshome.net... > On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 22:43:11 +0200, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote: > >> 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. > > None of these assertions hold in a DVCS repository. Merging in or rebasing > an old branch ruins everything. >
I don't see how merging would cause a problem. A merge is a new commit, so it would get the next new revision number just like any other new commit would. And from what people have been saying, rebasing is only kosher on private repos so any little bit of awkwardness in there woudn't be a big deal (and I'm not sure how awkward it would be anyway since if if you're shuffling history around you'd *expect* the revision numbers to change since that's exactly what you're doing anyway).