On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 03:06:39PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > I would like to see policy forbid the use of commit hashes in versions. > They aren't ordered, and the information about exactly which commit the > snapshot was can be included in the changelog.
If you use "git describe", removing hashes is a bad idea.
They are needed to identify the version. Version numbers that are not
unique are worthless.
A small portion of the hash is there only to disambiguate potential
branches, ordering is provided by the number of commits:
0.9.0-a0-283-g1143071 means: tag "0.9.0-a0", with 283 revisions after it,
from a branch whose head's hash starts with 1143071.
If I take revision 282 and apply patch X, while you take the same revision
but apply patch Y instead, we both would have the same version number if
hash is not included.
You can then checkout 0.9.0-a0-283-g1143071 in any repository that has my
commits and you'll get that exact version. 0.9.0-a0-283 doesn't give you
that.
> Mercurial revision numbers should not be used either as they are not
> consistent between repositories (they really were a stupid idea in a
> distributed VCS).
For Mercurial, you're probably right.
Just upgrade to git :p
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
