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: Referring to revisions in the git future. Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:24:07 +0100 Message-ID: <87ppdb7p7s.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <20141028223312.GB6630@acm.acm> <87tx2n7qlg.fsf@wanadoo.es> <20141028230557.GC6630@acm.acm> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1414538693 26725 80.91.229.3 (28 Oct 2014 23:24:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:24:53 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 29 00:24:47 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 1XjG7z-0003MN-GP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:24:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41787 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjG7z-0001BB-1x for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:24:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49120) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjG7q-00019s-U3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:24:36 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjG7l-0000ef-MM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:24:30 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:52336) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjG7l-0000eX-G0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:24:25 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XjG7i-00037O-Ov for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:24:22 +0100 Original-Received: from 198.red-79-158-173.staticip.rima-tde.net ([79.158.173.198]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:24:22 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 198.red-79-158-173.staticip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 00:24:22 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 43 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.red-79-158-173.staticip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:6Q+bkFhQfKN6CaiZNLZLBLg5OZU= 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:175949 Archived-At: Alan Mackenzie writes: > We've more than one branch in our Emacs repository, yet the bzr revision > numbers are not in the slightest inconvenient. Expressions like this, taken from your original message: "That was fixed in revision 118147, have you updated since then?" are not useful unless the branch is known. And then, if I wish to know if that fix was merged into another branch, I'm forced to obtain the message id. Rev numbers are only useful when the community works with a CVS-like workflow. >> As you use Mercurial, which has revision numbers, the advice of the >> Mercurial experts possibly have some weight for you: > >> http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/RevisionNumber > >> Revision numbers referring to changesets are very likely to be >> different in another copy of a repository. Do not use them to talk >> about changesets with other people. Use the changeset ID instead. > > That is a bit like saying, instead of saying "tomorrow at 8 o'clock", > which is horribly ambiguous, you should instead say at time 238707724383 > (i.e. number of seconds after 1970-01-01, or whenever it was). Changeset > IDs are good for some things, bad for others. Yes, one of the inconveniences of changeset ids are that they are just that: ids, without any other info. OTOH it is trivial to obtain any info from the id alone (author, date, diff, branches that include it, etc) with a simple Emacs trick. That does not apply to rev numbers. >> OTOH, there was some discussion on this list about using some >> tool-independent schema, using a combination of the author's e-mail and >> a timestamp. > > Are they going to enable the sort of conversation I exemplified above? As they would contain a human-readable timestamp, yes, essentially. But the timestamp was, precisely, the trickiest part to get right.