On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:16:52 +0200, Martin Gagnon <eme...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:39:49PM +0300, Baruch Burstein wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:03 PM, j. van den hoff
<[1]veedeeh...@googlemail.com> wrote:
and it really is just irrelevant for the simple envisaged
convenience
measure: being able to use the ranks instead of the hashes for
identifying checkins in _my_ clone when interacting with fossil.
I am starting to agree. When I used hg, I didn't usually even
remember the
local numbers. I would usually look them up in the timeline of recent
checkins, and then use them for diffs/branches/rollbacks/whatnot. It
was
just easier than hashes. So the renumbering would not be critical.
I agree, but the only *potential* problem would be when people blindly
use the sequential number when posting links on mailing list or forum.
It could become confusing when the link point to another valid link,
but not the good one.
yes, beyond "checkin 1000" this could happen (if by chance there is some
checkin whose sha1 hash starts with those 4 digits). but I would argue
that when posting links or talking about checkins on mailing lists it
simply should be considered mandatory to use the hashes. should not be
_that_ much of a pedagogical challenge to drive that point home ;-)
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
