On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 08:03:22 -0500 "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Perhaps the difference is that we're making a [fine] distinction > between "useful in a truely distributed system" and "useful when > WORKING in a truely distributed system". cworth's point back up a few > posts is good; nearly all of my use of revnos is in direct interaction > with the tool, where the revnos just came from looking at the history. > And of those uses that aren't in that class, nearly all of THOSE are > very transient. Non-local (in time or space) stability in either of > those cases is a total non-concern. Sure, but if they're just a local feature then why propagate them with the distributed data? If they're meant only to be used locally, they can be guaranteed to be stable by never replicating them, with obvious benefits for the local user. However bzr makes the (IMO) mistake of including them in the data that is distributed between repos. This suggests bzr team just doesn't care about the distributed models where this will not help and will quite possibly lead to frustration and confusion. And yes, I know that you haven't seen those situations yourself yet. Obviously, it's the Bzr teams trade-off to make, but if an avid user like yourself thinks of revno's as local, perhaps they've made the wrong choice. Sean - 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