Re: Referring to revisions in the git future.

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eric S. Raymond writes:

 > I agree that git hashes make a terrrible reference format.

I agree, but only because so many people I need to communicate with
think so.  In a more perfect world, I'd go with the easily
recognizable and unambiguous IDs.  The main advantage is that you
never have conversations like

    E:  I believe that was fixed in r666042.
    S:  But how does a commit to Gnus fix vc-git?

and you do have conversations like

    E:  I fixed that in commit FACECAFE.
    S:  I just pulled, and there's no FACECAFE here.
    E:  OMG!!  ... Try it now.

If you live in Emacs, this is hardly inconvenient as long as you have
get-log-for-sha1-near-point (unimplemented :-) and
get-logs-for-sha1s-in-buffer (also unimplemented :-).  Heck, if we
agreed on this, I bet larsi would provide a zero-day exploit which
washes your message presentation buffer and provides mouse-over
tooltips containing the log for each SHA1 in the message.

Sure there are design issues (which repo, mainly), but these could be
handled.