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

Reply via email to