On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > > > Normally, you'd just use the branch-name. Nobody ever uses the SHA1's > > directly. > > With the exception of having sometimes commit-ids in the commit messages, > for example "Fixes bug introduced by aabbcc00" (although usually you just > write "Fixes bug in some_function in some_file"), and automatically > generated > This reverts d119e3de13ea1493107bd57381d0ce9c9dd90976 commit. Yes. But in both cases, that's usually because you literally ended up having the commit name because somebody else (which _can_ be you) searched for it (with something like "bisect") and gave it to you. So even that case is really about communicating a stable name from one place (the "find the bug") to another (the "revert the buggy commit"). So yes, _communication_ should always happen by full SHA1's, because those are the only thing that always remain stable. (The fact that "gitk" and I think "gitweb" can then turn them into hyperlinks in the commit message is obviously one reason we then tend to give them such prominent visibility - they actually end up being very useful later on). In bzr, either you don't get the hyperlinks, or you need to use the non-simple name in the commit messages, since the simple names don't actually work. Either way, it's an inferior setup. Linus - 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