Re: Referring to revisions in the git future.

[Paul Eggert]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> We've more than one branch in our Emacs repository, yet the bzr revision
> numbers are not in the slightest inconvenient.

On more than one occasion they've been inconvenient to me, because I've 
mistakenly used a trunk bzr revno in a non-trunk branch, or vice versa.  It's a 
natural mistake to make.

> > there was some discussion on this list about using some
> > tool-independent schema, using a combination of the author's e-mail and
> > a timestamp.
>
> Are they going to enable the sort of conversation I exemplified above?

Sure, if they catch on.  If not, another common simplification is abbreviated 
hashes, as in the output of "git log --abbrev-commit".  That way, instead of 
writing "04a4a930a63e7396976fc016661f8f466faa64e6" one can write "04a4a93". 
Abbreviated hashes are not perfect -- they're not sequential and in theory they 
can collide -- but in practice they work well enough.