On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 03:06:39PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > I would like to see policy forbid the use of commit hashes in versions. > They aren't ordered, and the information about exactly which commit the > snapshot was can be included in the changelog. If you use "git describe", removing hashes is a bad idea. They are needed to identify the version. Version numbers that are not unique are worthless. A small portion of the hash is there only to disambiguate potential branches, ordering is provided by the number of commits: 0.9.0-a0-283-g1143071 means: tag "0.9.0-a0", with 283 revisions after it, from a branch whose head's hash starts with 1143071. If I take revision 282 and apply patch X, while you take the same revision but apply patch Y instead, we both would have the same version number if hash is not included. You can then checkout 0.9.0-a0-283-g1143071 in any repository that has my commits and you'll get that exact version. 0.9.0-a0-283 doesn't give you that. > Mercurial revision numbers should not be used either as they are not > consistent between repositories (they really were a stupid idea in a > distributed VCS). For Mercurial, you're probably right. Just upgrade to git :p -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature