[haiku-development] Re: Mercurial version string Was:Re: Re: VOTE: Git or Mercurial (hg) as Haiku's new source control tool
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:26:00 +0200 (MEST)
Ingo Weinhold<ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2011-05-11 at 23:17:57 [+0200], Niels Sascha Reedijk
> I'm still fan of the comparable revision number idea. Maybe the date part
> can be extended by another component to make it unique? E.g.
> "2011-05-11-13" would denote the 13th changeset that day. Would that be
> possible?
In that case I would even leave out the hash code from the central repository,
as it's then simply not needed (if one can retrieve the revisions from the tool
this way, that is, but this should be mandatory anyway).
In any case, I would consider this a viable compromise from the sequential SVN
revisions, even though I think it certainly sucks to go through all the hassle
to implement a feature that a DVCS could easily provide on its own, or are only
not a good idea because of a poor implementation of certain features (like the
lightweight tags in git, where obviously only their implementation is
lightweight).
BTW why are the repository-centric revision numbers that at least hg allows for
not adequate again?
> BTW, how would we deal with references to pre-existing SVN revisions? Our
> Trac tickets are full of those (even some commit message contain
> references). Making them all meaningless when we switch the VCS would
> seriously suck. What means do our VCS candidates provide that would allow
> the mapping? Or maybe we'd rather adjust the tickets to use the new
> revision references?
And also in the commit history, and even better, the development list, the
commit list, and even news items? I don't think that "changing the past" is the
way to go here. But yes, a solution to this problem should be mandatory for a
switch.
Bye,
Axel.
Other related posts:
