Re: Referring to revisions in the git future.

[David Kastrup]

Barry Warsaw <address@hidden> writes:

> On Oct 30, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>
>>Sure, and they're convenient mostly because you're used to them.  They
>>really don't have more content than SHA1s do, but they're easier to
>>read because they're decimal and relatively small.  I'm not going to
>>deny that, but I think everybody would be better off if some
>>infrastructure were created to make SHA1s easier to manipulate.
>
> That's the point I'm really trying to make; SHAs are simply terrible to
> communicate between humans.

They are not intended for communication between humans.  Neither are
revision numbers.  The moment you recognize a revision number without
even referring to a computer is when that revision number has become
infamous.  And in that case, you are at least equally likely to
recognize the first digits of its SHA1 since it differs much more from
those of the neighboring commits than a revision number would.

-- 
David Kastrup