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: Sat, 02 Apr 2011 02:03:49 +0200 Message-ID: <87aag9tt7e.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <877hbfvwyo.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87sju2hoee.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <87pqp6vn3p.fsf@wanadoo.es> <874o6iicxp.fsf@ambire.localdomain> <83mxkapb2g.fsf@gnu.org> <87zkoat20x.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83liztyeed.fsf@gnu.org> <87ipuxu3hb.fsf@wanadoo.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1301702657 13287 80.91.229.12 (2 Apr 2011 00:04:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 00:04:17 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 02 02:04:14 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 1Q5oK6-0007Ox-1u for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 02 Apr 2011 02:04:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45874 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q5oK5-0003sa-Dc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:04:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=35802 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Q5oJx-0003rS-GK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:04:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5oJw-0006RC-3O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:04:05 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:56468) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5oJv-0006Qj-Pq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2011 20:04:04 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Q5oJt-00078C-AY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Apr 2011 02:04:01 +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 ; Sat, 02 Apr 2011 02:04:01 +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 ; Sat, 02 Apr 2011 02:04:01 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 49 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:UeOMdw6BwKswsAfGMGSLx1xY/5A= 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:138046 Archived-At: Uday S Reddy writes: > On 4/1/2011 9:21 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > >> >> So you are in favor of using revnos when you know that the revision you >> are referencing is on trunk, and revids otherwise? > > Dear Oscar, In the subthread started by Stephen Turnbull, I have > argued that it is easy enough to decode revision numbers as long as > they are referring to the mainline or the local branch. He has agreed > with that argument. > > Can you comment on whether this convention suits you? I don't get the part about the local branch. If you branch from trunk when the tip revno is 10, then commit locally (revno 11) then commit again locally (revno 12) mentioning your revno 11 on the commit message, finally merge the changes into trunk which meanwhile advanced to revno 15, this is how trunk looks like afterwards: 16 merge uday's awesome feature into trunk 16.1.2 Fix bug introduced on revision 11 16.1.1 Implement awesome feature 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 .... So 16.1.2 mentions revision 11, which is wrong. Other issues with your proposal are: 1. People do as they see. If you put revnos on trunk's commit messages they get the message that it is okay to do that on their branches too. 2. Related to the previous, it is undesirable to add exceptions to policies. 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. 4. Generalizing the previous point: revids remain valid after a merge, revnos don't.