Re: Referring to revisions in the git future.

[David Kastrup]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>> For example, in response to my earlier post, Stefan responded that
>> SHA1s aren't that easy to recognize and you'll get too many false
>> positives.  My initial rebuttal was "Eh?!", but a more constructive
>> response is, so we establish a convention of prefixing with "sha:" or
>> "SHA:".
>
> I'd rather go with "git:", but yes that's also the first obvious answer
> that came to my mind.

git: indicates a transfer method.  40 hexadecimal digits are pretty
unambiguous on their own.

-- 
David Kastrup