> Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > FYI the reason the SHA1 hashes are used for revisions is because > > > of > > > the decentralized nature. When everyone has their own repo, what > > > does > > > r1234 mean? Your r1234 might be totally different than mine. You > > > just > > > can't have a global atomic incremental revision number in > > > decentralized systems. > > As long as there is an official repository (and IMHO there should > > always be > > one), that one could generate the revision numbers. I understand > > why > > hashes > > are used, but I agree with Michael that they are by far not as > > handy > > as > > revision numbers. > > Mercurial also supports revision numbers for each repository - in > addition to the hash value. > That means that as long as we have an official repository (I agree > with > Ingo that we should always have this), there could also be meaningful > revision numbers with "hg" as well. > > I've played around with both, git and Mercurial in the past a bit, > but > using it on-top of SVN is at least inconvenient. Unlike git's SVN > support, Mercurial's is not really ready for use, though. > Note there are some extentions to hg, maybe there is someone that does what you want... François.