On 12/29/11 01:22, Torsten Giebl wrote:
> GIT is great, no question about it,
> but i hate one thing about it and some other SCMs, it is the hash IDs.
> Are you using "6ff87c4664981e4397625791c8ea3bbb5f2279a3" ?
> I like the numbering of SVN.
>
> 1000
> 1001
> 1002
> .
> .
> It is easier to remeber when you are filing a bug report, it is easier when
> you have to backport fixes.
>
> We need to backport the fixes from "4020-4025".
> Nice, easy to read, try that with hashes :-(
Indeed, and here's an example of how those hashes find their way
into /public/ readable pages, non-programmers just trying to download
the latest binary builds of git snapshots:
http://ffmpeg.zeranoe.com/builds/
Quoting that page:
32-bit Builds (Static)
FFmpeg git-5f0105b 32-bit Static (Latest) (2012-10-26)
FFmpeg git-04bf2e7 32-bit Static (2012-10-20)
FFmpeg git-1a104bf 32-bit Static (2012-10-10)
FFmpeg git-f3f35f7 32-bit Static (2012-10-09)
^^^^^^^
64-bit Builds (Static)
FFmpeg git-5f0105b 64-bit Static (Latest) (2012-10-26)
FFmpeg git-04bf2e7 64-bit Static (2012-10-20)
FFmpeg git-1a104bf 64-bit Static (2012-10-10)
FFmpeg git-f3f35f7 64-bit Static (2012-10-09)
^^^^^^^
They're not even sequential, so you can't use them to determine
if one is newer or older than the other.
Apparently this lack of sequential numbering has to do with the
distributed,
decentralized nature of git's design, as there is no server to manage
the sequential number.
Apparently there are hacks to do this though; not sure if they're easy
to
administer and use in practice, though:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4120001/what-is-the-git-equivalent-for-revision-number
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/677436/how-to-get-the-git-commit-count
http://gitready.com/beginner/2009/02/03/tagging.html
_______________________________________________
fltk-dev mailing list
fltk-dev@easysw.com
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
