From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Referring to revisions in the git future. Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:17:56 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <878ujx97zf.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20141028223312.GB6630@acm.acm> <20141029004942.GA25241@thyrsus.com> <20141029105202.249acb5a@anarchist.wooz.org> <87bnouapiy.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20141029150600.GA5701@thyrsus.com> <20141029141216.7abbbc0d@anarchist.wooz.org> <87tx2m2pw8.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <20141030003547.4fc23b46@anarchist.wooz.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1414664464 7081 80.91.229.3 (30 Oct 2014 10:21:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 10:21:04 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 30 11:20:58 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xjmqd-00065C-Mt for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:20:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52212 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xjmqc-0008SL-Uj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:20:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49797) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xjmpv-0008Mz-K1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:20:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xjmpp-0000kK-9e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:20:11 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:41731) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xjmpp-0000ib-4H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 06:20:05 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xjmpm-0005XU-EB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:20:02 +0100 Original-Received: from x2f41466.dyn.telefonica.de ([2.244.20.102]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:20:02 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by x2f41466.dyn.telefonica.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:20:02 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 22 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: x2f41466.dyn.telefonica.de X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:jnSK+ltdU0Nyt+//N8hcOz88WfE= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:176066 Archived-At: Barry Warsaw writes: > On Oct 30, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > >>Sure, and they're convenient mostly because you're used to them. They >>really don't have more content than SHA1s do, but they're easier to >>read because they're decimal and relatively small. I'm not going to >>deny that, but I think everybody would be better off if some >>infrastructure were created to make SHA1s easier to manipulate. > > That's the point I'm really trying to make; SHAs are simply terrible to > communicate between humans. They are not intended for communication between humans. Neither are revision numbers. The moment you recognize a revision number without even referring to a computer is when that revision number has become infamous. And in that case, you are at least equally likely to recognize the first digits of its SHA1 since it differs much more from those of the neighboring commits than a revision number would. -- David Kastrup