Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Aaron Bentley wrote: >> I understand your argument now. It's nothing to do with numbers per se, >> and all about per-branch namespaces. Correct? > > I don't know if that is what Carl's problem is, but yes, to somebody from > the git world, it's totally insane to have the _same_ commit have ten > different names just depending on which branch is was in. > > In git-land, the name of a commit is the same in every branch. I've been following the git-vs-bzr discussion, and I'd like to ask a question (being new to both bzr and git). How does git disambiguate SHA1 hash collisions? I think git has an alternative way to name revisions (can someone please explain it in more detail, I've seen <ref>~<n> mentioned only in passing in this thread). It seems to me collisions are a good argument in favour of having two independent naming schemes, so that you're not solely relying on hashes being unique. A strong argument is that a global namespace based on hashes of data is ideal because the names are generated from the data being named, and therefore are immutable. Same data => same name for that data, always and forever, which is desirable when merging named data from many sources. But the converse isn't true: one name does not necessarily map to only that data. Have I misunderstood? Is this a problem? Ta, Loki - 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