Aaron Bentley wrote: >> The naming in git really is beautiful and beautifully simple. > > Well, you've got to admit that those names are at least superficially > ugly. If you want pretty name, you tag it. Tags are exchanged during fetch/push operation. And you can have pretty names of revisions like v1.4.3 >> It's not monotonically increasing from one revision to the next, but >> I've never found that to be an issue. Of course, we do still use our >> own "simple" names for versioning the releases and snapshots of >> software we manage with git, and that's where being able to easily >> determine "newer" or "older" by simple numerical examination is >> important. I've honestly never encountered a situation where I was >> handed two git sha1 sums and wished that I could do the same thing. > > What's nice is being able see the revno 753 and knowing that "diff -r > 752..753" will show the changes it introduced. Checking the revo on a > branch mirror and knowing how out-of-date it is. Huh? If you want what changes have been introduced by commit c3424aebbf722c1f204931bf1c843e8a103ee143, you just do # git diff c3424aebbf722c1f204931bf1c843e8a103ee143 (or better "git show" instead of "git diff" or "git diff-tree"). If you give only one commit (only one revision) git automatically gives diff to its parent(s). By the way, is referring to revision by it's revno _fast_? -- Jakub Narebski Poland - 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