From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Uday S Reddy Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Please don't use revision numbers on commit messages (and elsewhere). Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 19:56:14 +0100 Message-ID: <19862.8142.593000.732843@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <877hbfvwyo.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87tyeivni1.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87ei5mvij7.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87pqp6m2yg.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <19861.65424.828000.109632@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <87mxk9n8tl.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301684209 16706 80.91.229.12 (1 Apr 2011 18:56:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 18:56:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Uday S Reddy , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 01 20:56:43 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 1Q5jWU-0004r0-Ji for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:56:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:40099 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q5jWT-0000tZ-HM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:56:41 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50475 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q5jWN-0000sD-Hu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:56:36 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5jWM-0004iz-6c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:56:35 -0400 Original-Received: from sun60.bham.ac.uk ([147.188.128.137]:62878) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5jWM-0004ik-25 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:56:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [147.188.128.127] (helo=bham.ac.uk) by sun60.bham.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5jWI-0007V3-O4; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:56:30 +0100 Original-Received: from mx1.cs.bham.ac.uk ([147.188.192.53]) by bham.ac.uk (envelope-from ) with esmtps (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.72) id 1Q5jWI-0006hO-E5 using interface smart1.bham.ac.uk; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:56:30 +0100 Original-Received: from gromit.cs.bham.ac.uk ([147.188.193.16] helo=MARUTI.cs.bham.ac.uk) by mx1.cs.bham.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1Q5jWG-000845-Jc; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 19:56:28 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87mxk9n8tl.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> X-Mailer: VM 8.1.93a under 23.3.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 147.188.128.137 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:138016 Archived-At: Stephen J. Turnbull writes: > > Not really. Since r43 is a reference to a revision _local_ to the > > merged branch, it is easy to interpret it as a reference to 42.1.1. > > You only know it's local to the branch if you have global knowledge of > the whole project. But if you do have that knowledge, it doesn't much > matter how you make these references. No, the assumption is that the numeric references to revisions are either to the mainline or to the local branch. I think these cover 90% of the cases. Others would have to be more explicit references (either by revision id or by specific description of the branch/date etc.) So, a reference to revision 43 inside a branch that starts from revision 42 is very very likely to be a local reference. In the very odd case where the author is trying to refer to the revision 43 of the trunk (which is sort of the in "future"), he/she would probably describe it as "revision 43 of the trunk". If there is a reference to revision 40, then it would have to be revision 40 of the mainline, because this branch starts only at revision 42. So, the two cases that are important seem to be easily discernible and problem doesn't seem to be as bad as it is being made out to be. But then I haven't seen all the weird cases that might occur in a large multi-developer project. Cheers, Uday