From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Please don't use revision numbers on commit messages (and elsewhere). Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:59:08 +0900 Message-ID: <87ei5mvij7.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> References: <877hbfvwyo.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87tyeivni1.fsf@wanadoo.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301622831 11291 80.91.229.12 (1 Apr 2011 01:53:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 01:53:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=D3scar?= Fuentes , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 01 03:53:47 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 1Q5TYZ-0007hl-FK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 03:53:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35958 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q5TYZ-0005iA-5r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:53:47 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46229 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q5TYS-0005dD-RJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:53:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5TYR-0007b7-OK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:53:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp ([130.158.97.224]:39281) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5TYR-0007aq-8A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:53:39 -0400 Original-Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by mgmt2.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAFE89705E3; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:53:36 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0A5521A35C0; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 10:59:09 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 8.1.93a under 21.5 (beta29) "garbanzo" eac2e6bd5b2c+ XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.158.97.224 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:137966 Archived-At: Juanma Barranquero writes: > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 02:11, =D3scar Fuentes wrote: >=20 > > The Emacs project has a number of branches published on a well-known > > site, and hopefully other branches distributed along a number of > > personal machines. I'm saying that using revision numbers is confusing > > when those revisions are merged across branches. >=20 > Yes, and I'm saying that, so far, it seems quite clear from the > context which branch a revno refers to. That's only because so far, people don't lose push races often enough for it to matter. Commits that from your point of view are on the mainline really are on local branches until you succeed in pushing. If you use a bound branch, you're saved from that, true (this is not entirely trivial, but I'm pretty sure in practice it will be true). But bound branches suck for anything much bigger than a typo fix. If you lose a push race, you have to undo the commit so you can redo the commit message. That (a) sucks even if you know what you're doing, and (b) is probably beyond the average Emacs committer at that moment. (b) is no insult, just my estimate of a fact, and I see *no reason* why that should change. And of course (c) a lot of people will forget (or never know about it in the first place). I've been annoyed by this a couple of times in XEmacs. > I don't foresee that super-distributed future that you imagine for > Emacs. It doesn't require a super-distributed future, just an Emacs sprint. Then you'll see people losing push races all over the place, and anybody who's using revnos will have to go back and fix them. > And if it does come to pass, it's everyone's responsibility to > clearly label their revnos. Well, OK, but I don't see how you can "label" a revno that's (a) just plain wrong and (b) embedded in a commit message that can't be changed. The right thing to do is to use a revid (which is bzr-friendly), or ttn's literary style of commit message (which is people-friendly, except to the committer and people who really exercise the capability of the VCS). > No. Use always revision numbers and trust the users to be smart. "Smart" is one thing, "anal retentive" is another. Especially at any time it's likely to matter (ie, the commit rushes that always occur just before a freeze). People are going to be frustrated enough by losing push races. They're not going to want to rebase their local commits (and this has to be done by hand since the commit messages need to be changed) at that point in time.