On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Sean wrote: > > Since the utility provided by revno's seems so minimal even in the > case where they do work, Git simply doesn't bother with them. And > "our" experience is that Git really does work well without them. Yes. This really is what it boils down to. The _only_ time you actually use revision numbers (as opposed to branch-names or tag-names) is when you want a _stable_ number. It's that simple. You never really need a revision number otherwise. In other situations, you do things like git log --since=2.days.ago gitk v2.6.18.. git diff --stat --summary ORIG_HEAD.. or whatever. It's clearly not "stable", but it's also clearly not a revision number from a UI perspective. When you want a revision number is _exactly_ when you're moving things between branches, or reporting a bug to somebody else, or similar. And that's also _exactly_ when you want the number to be stable and meaningful (ie the other end should be able to rely on the number). And if you need refer to a central repository to do that, it's clearly not distributed. Not needing such a central reference point is what the word "distributed" _means_ in computer science for chrissake! 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