On 2011-05-13 at 04:15:37 [+0200], Jon Yoder<darkwyrm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 05/12/2011 09:39 AM, Ingo Weinhold wrote:
Do the tools even store times with that precision? At least a simple
"log" only produces full seconds with either. git's --date=raw option
(which I'd expect to show what is actually stored) produces what
looks like a number of seconds since some point in time.
I use Mercurial all the time, but I don't go too far in depth typically
so I can't say for sure, but I doubt it. I was thinking more along the
lines of adding a tag to each revision with the output of the date
command. It could offer sufficient precision that including the hash
would be unnecessary. I could just be completely out in left field on
this one, but it was just a thought.
If adding a tag to each revision were an option, we could just as well tag
with svn-like revision numbers. That had been proposed for git (via
lightweight tags; hg doesn't seem to have an equivalent), but it turned out
to have performance issues.
