Dear diary, on Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 12:07:08AM CEST, I got a letter where Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> said that... > Joel Dice wrote: > > Rationale: > > > > Incrementing revision numbers (IRNs - an acronym I just made up) are > > useful in that they can be treated as auto-generated tags which are easier > > to remember and communicate than SHA hashes, yet do not require extra > > effort to create like real tags. Also, they have the advantage of being > > chronologically ordered, so if I assert that a bug was fixed in revision > > 42 of a shared repository, everyone may assume that revision 45 has that > > fix as well. > > That is true _only_ if you have linear history. If you have multiple > concurrent branches, revision 42 can be in branch 'next', revision '45' in > topic branch 'xx/topic' which forked before revision 42, and do not have > the fix. Oops, I've completely overlooked that bit of the rationale. Of course IRNs cannot assure this. -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ Snow falling on Perl. White noise covering line noise. Hides all the bugs too. -- J. Putnam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html