From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Please don't use revision numbers on commit messages (and elsewhere). Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:43:39 +0200 Message-ID: <87ei5lu2h0.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <877hbfvwyo.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87tyeivni1.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87k4fevkc1.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83wrjepepy.fsf@gnu.org> <874o6iugpt.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83ei5lycis.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301691722 27210 80.91.229.12 (1 Apr 2011 21:02:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 21:02:02 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 01 23:01:56 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5lTR-0004uw-9y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 23:01:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60687 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q5lGA-0002cZ-W6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:47:59 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53468 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q5lCH-0000qA-UX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:43:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5lCF-0001VE-HT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:43:56 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:36322) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5lCF-0001V9-Ab for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 16:43:55 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5lCE-0008Jd-1g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:43:54 +0200 Original-Received: from 131.red-83-59-5.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([83.59.5.131]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:43:53 +0200 Original-Received: from ofv by 131.red-83-59-5.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 22:43:53 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 31 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.red-83-59-5.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:MYi/9JkJwn/nn+BMbGUMLCdjq78= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:138038 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: [snip] >> > It is very easy to see that revision, even if it is on the other >> > branch, assuming that the referenced branch is in your repo, with the >> > "revno:NNN:/path/to/branch" revision identifier. >> >> Precisely, what I described above was a setup where having the "other >> branch" (say better "the other brancheS") is a burden. So I don't have >> them. > > The above works with URLs as well, of course. You don't need to have > the branches locally. URLs are useless when you have no internet. I usally work on my hobby projects on isolated places. In general you are assuming that others share your work environment, views and practices. Please note that the transition to a dVCS removed a lot of implicit policies. Anyways I was just suggesting a sane practice for any project: avoid ambiguity on communication. Commit messages are communication devices just like code comments, function names, etc. You write them once, but are read a million times. You can argue that a revno is as clear as a revid for those working on trunk. I say that it is a burden for those who work on branches, and a potential source of confussion if the practice is used by those who work on branches. I've made my point. Now, everyone do as you please.