Hi Brecht, 2011/5/4 Brecht Machiels <brecht@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, 04 May 2011 21:51:29 +0200, Oliver Tappe <zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > >>> When talking about consistent revision IDs in Git, are these the same as >>> what is output by 'git describe' (tag name + number of commits since then >>> + hash)? >> >> I think those are indeed consistent (i.e. they never change between >> repos),but they are still a bit clumsy (long and not easy to compare). >> I was referring to IDs like 'hrev40283' (or indeed 'r40283' as we use in >> Trac) that sticks to a specific changeset and gets moved alongside of that >> changeset wherever it goes, i.e. that changeset can be referred by that >> name in any repo. > > I think the output of git describe might be more useful, as it contains more > information. 'r1a1-226-4acf445' makes it obvious that this is referring to a > changeset somewhere after R1 alpha 1, but before R1 alpha 2 (tagged r1a2, > obviously). Also, in the future you might want to provide nightly builds of > experimental branches, resulting, for example, in 'multiuser-192-996c136'. > The hash isn't absolutely necessary, I suppose (unless rebasing?), so we > could drop that to make it more readable. The hg equivalent would be [1] hg log -r . --template '{latesttag}-{latesttagdistance}-{node|short}\n' Looks long and complex, but it really is only a string that will be in the AboutSystem app and it can be generated in the build script. N> [1] http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/GitConcepts