On 10 September 2015 at 19:23, Noam Postavsky <npost...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:29 AM, Michal Suchanek <hramr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Given that fossil does not support history rewriting by design the >> commit number on a particular branch counting from root is unique and >> stable per branch across all repos. >> >> If you release from a single master branch you have a monotonous >> snapshot number. >> >> When you use multiple branches you need to add branch name to have >> stable unique identifier. >> >> This is not viable eg. for git with rebasing. > > I think (accidental) forks in fossil would also break the uniqueness > of the numbering scheme. > > For example see figure 3 of > http://fossil-scm.org/xfer/doc/trunk/www/branching.wiki > > Both check-ins 3 and 4 are equidistant from the root.
And each is on a differnt branch. When you create the merge checkin 5 you create it on a particular branch and it gets incremental number along the branch even if it merges multiple checkins from other branch. > More complicated > cases with differing numbers of check-ins on each side of the fork are > possible. And in each case the per-branch numbering is exactly defined. And when you have some master branch on a master repo from which you cut snapshot releases you get monotonous numbering. Thanks Michal _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
