Re: Please don't use revision numbers on commit messages (and elsewhere).

["Óscar Fuentes" <ofv@wanadoo.es>]

Uday S Reddy <u.s.reddy@cs.bham.ac.uk> writes:

> No, the trunk really looks like this:
>
>  16 merge uday's awesome feature into trunk
>  10.1.2 Fix bug introduced on revision 11
>  10.1.1 Implement awesome feature
>  15 someone else's changes
>  14 someone else's changes
>  13 someone else's changes
>  12 someone else's changes
>  11 someone else's changes
>  10 someone else's changes

You are right.

[snip]

> The branch-local-revision is the localized version of the revision
> number, i.e., 1 = 11-10, 2 = 12-10, ...
>
> So, doing that bit of arithmetic is all it takes to decode "revision 11".

Yes, that works as long as those commits are merged in the same
operation.

But even on that case we would be better without the arithmetic. Think a
feature branch with dozens or hundreds of commits. And I'm not talking
just about commit messages. References on bug reports or e-mail
exchanges suffer from the same.

[snip]

>>   3. If you are inspecting the VC history on a branch and wish to see
>>      where certain commit with revno X mentioned on a commit message, bug
>>      report, etc fits on the context of your branch, you must go out of
>>      your way to look up on trunk the revid of X.
>
> All you would need is your branch's history.  I don't understand what
> you would find on the trunk that you don't have in your branch's log
> already.

My branch log doesn't show the revnos of trunk as they are on trunk, but
some renumbered version. As you mention, I can start counting merged
revisions across merge points until reaching the referenced revision,
but that's impractical.

[snip]