On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:57:37 +0200, Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote:
5 is more like it, and those should be dealt with before starting a new task (which is most probably what's hiding behind the need to interpret revision numbers).I could live with revision IDs only being 100% reliable on a clean master.Of course I can somehow extract the information from the repository. If it were only about that the hashes would suffice just the same. The advantage of revision numbers is that the numbers themselves are comparable.
In 99% of the cases, this is also true for descriptors.
We appear to disagree on the categorization. The mechanism only working for unmodified clones of a haiku-central branch is a limitation which I do consider an issue.
This will be the same for any DVCS. The only reason it's not a problem for SVN, is because you're stuck with a central repository. And that has a lot of other disadvantages.
Let's keep in mind for whom we're going to switch the VCS: For the developers, not the people who just want to build their own images.
A DVCS offers a lot of advantages for developers. Are you willing to sacrifice all these just for sequential revision numbers?
The lack of sequential revisions numbers will not be a major problem in practice, and a lot of information can be stored during the build anyway.
With SVN, people can also spread altered builds, and you won't have access to this information. Therefore, I do understand why you make such a problem out of this.