Nick Sabalausky Wrote: > "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?
Well, I was talking more about the "gibberish" statement. I was surprised how a programmer calls unique identifier - a well known concept - a gibberish. As to revision numbers, well, it could be a nice feature to support hash identifiers with any attached text, which is just ignored by git, but helps people think about them... does hg work this way, I wonder?
