From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:22:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <9e4733910610140807p633f5660q49dd2d2111c9f5fe@mail.gmail.com> <1161147348.3423.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200610181750.32888.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Andreas Ericsson , bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, git@vger.kernel.org, Robert Collins X-From: bazaar-ng-bounces@lists.canonical.com Wed Oct 18 18:23:57 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org Received: from esperanza.ubuntu.com ([82.211.81.173]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GaECR-00047W-1u for gcvbg-bazaar-ng@m.gmane.org; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:23:25 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=esperanza.ubuntu.com) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GaECB-0000fi-SC; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:23:07 +0100 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]) by esperanza.ubuntu.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GaEC6-0000fL-Dk for bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:23:02 +0100 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k9IGMxaX031043 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:23:00 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k9IGMwPc008036; Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:22:58 -0700 To: Jakub Narebski In-Reply-To: <200610181750.32888.jnareb@gmail.com> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.471 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.95__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.155 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 X-BeenThere: bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8 Precedence: list List-Id: bazaar-ng discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: bazaar-ng-bounces@lists.canonical.com Errors-To: bazaar-ng-bounces@lists.canonical.com Archived-At: On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: > > > > Normally, you'd just use the branch-name. Nobody ever uses the SHA1's > > directly. > > With the exception of having sometimes commit-ids in the commit messages, > for example "Fixes bug introduced by aabbcc00" (although usually you just > write "Fixes bug in some_function in some_file"), and automatically > generated > This reverts d119e3de13ea1493107bd57381d0ce9c9dd90976 commit. Yes. But in both cases, that's usually because you literally ended up having the commit name because somebody else (which _can_ be you) searched for it (with something like "bisect") and gave it to you. So even that case is really about communicating a stable name from one place (the "find the bug") to another (the "revert the buggy commit"). So yes, _communication_ should always happen by full SHA1's, because those are the only thing that always remain stable. (The fact that "gitk" and I think "gitweb" can then turn them into hyperlinks in the commit message is obviously one reason we then tend to give them such prominent visibility - they actually end up being very useful later on). In bzr, either you don't get the hyperlinks, or you need to use the non-simple name in the commit messages, since the simple names don't actually work. Either way, it's an inferior setup. Linus