Re: On git 1.6 (novice's opinion)

[demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com>]

2009/3/27 Ulrich Windl <ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>:
> On 27 Mar 2009 at 13:49, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>
>> Ulrich Windl venit, vidit, dixit 27.03.2009 08:21:
>
> [...]
>
>> Keyword substitution and cvs/svn style version numbers are independent
>> issues. The sha1 describes a commit uniquely, one could use that as a
>> keyword.
>
> However version numbers and time stamps have the property of being at least
> partially ordered in respect of "newer/older". That property does not hold for
> SHA-1 checksums. Just imagine suggesting users to upgrade from Microsoft
> Word/004765c2a1e9771e886f0dbe87d4f89643cd6f70 to Microsoft
> Word/00b7e6f51130f234a969c84ee9231a5ff7fc8a82 ;-)

The problem here is that in some "version control" systems the concept
of "release version" has been conflated with "version control system
revision number".

They arent the same thing, never were, and conflating the two only
caused and causes trouble.

A "release version" is a *tag*, always has been or should have been
really, and in git is in fact.

Cheers,
yves



-- 
perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"