[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: On the popularity of git [Was: Git question: when using branches, ho

From: Nikolaus Rath
Subject: Re: On the popularity of git [Was: Git question: when using branches, how does git treat working files when changing branches?]
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 14:01:01 -0800
User-agent: Gnus/5.130014 (Ma Gnus v0.14) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux)

On Oct 31 2015, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> More generally, Git's main problem is that it breaks almost every
>> human habit gained with the other VCSes: instead of an easily
>> remembered numerical version IDs you have those inhuman hashes
> Shrug.  In a distributed version control system, numerical version IDs
> don't make sense.

They make a lot of sense if you don't require them to be constant over
time. Mercurial solves this beautifully. It has hashes if you need to
constant identifier, but if you just want to refer to the commit that
got printed/created/referred to by the command you typed 30 seconds ago,
you can use its handy numerical id.


GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

             »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]