On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 7:25 AM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:22 PM, j. van den hoff < > veedeeh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:58:35 +0200, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> >> wrote:0. >> intentionally undocumented or did nobody manage to add it to the >> manpages? >> > > Intentional - see the comment line at the start of that block. > "Intentional" might be too strong of a word here. I think j. van den hoff is correct that internal record ideas should not surprise the user in this way. The logic needs to be that record ids are use ONLY if there is no SHA1 hash with a prefix that matches the input. In fact, I thought that was the way it worked, though I haven't looked at the code lately and I might have missed something. > > >> 1. >> I don't hope this happens with priority (i.e. only if the integer is not >> the leading segment of a valid checkin hash)? >> > > See the 2nd and 3rd lines - those ensure that it only matches a whole > number. > > >> 2. >> for the layman: what exactly is the record ID? obviously it's not simply >> the chronological checkin number? > > > Almost - it's the db entry record ID (blob.rid table/field). They tend to > be chronological, but philosophically speeking that's not guaranteed > (except that autoincrementing basically guarantees it). > > -- > ----- stephan beal > http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ > http://gplus.to/sgbeal > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > > -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
