Tweet
Sure it is. My remark was more directed to the gits who invented git and regular boring motoronously increasing revision numbers weren't good enough for them...
-
See the elves and everything! http://angband.oook.cz -
Yeah, I never really got why we needed to change to a system where you have to use copy/paste to be able to look at your revision history...Comment
-
Uh, gitk? qgit?
The reason for not having increasing version numbers is that they make no sense in distributed revision control. Before you jump on me: I've tried Bazaar extensively (I even helped introduce it at work) and their revision numbers may make sense in the nearly trivial scenarios, but once you get to non-trivial scenarios they add nothing but confusion. Having a hash which uniquely identifies ALL of the contents of the repo at a certain point in time does make sense.
By the way, if you really insist on typing revision IDs you can just type the first few characters (enough to make it unambiguous).Comment
-
Oh, dur. Didn't think of that. To be fair, my use of distributed version control right now is limited to "I have a local repository, and a remote repository for backups, and nobody else is writing to the repo".Comment
-
Sorry, I realise now that my post "sounded" a bit more aggressive than I intended. Hopefully no feelings were hurt
.
Comment
-
"Been away so long I hardly knew the place, gee it's good to be back home" - The BeatlesComment
Comment