Re: Referring to revisions in the git future.

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> think so.  In a more perfect world, I'd go with the easily
> recognizable and unambiguous IDs.

Actually, if those revids were really mechanically usable, I think that
would be good enough.  But they're not "easily recognizable".

It's hard to write a regexp that recognizes these without too many false
positive, and even if you could do it, you'd still need to find out in
which repository to look it up (when they appear within a file within
that repository, it can be made to work, but when they appear in an
email it's much more difficult to link it to the appropriate
repository).


        Stefan