[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: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: On the popularity of git [Was: Git question: when using branches, how does git treat working files when changing branches?]
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:42:57 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Nikolaus Rath <address@hidden> writes:

> 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.

HEAD~2 works just fine in Git.  So does "address@hidden seconds ago}" though
one would rarely want to use that particular reference.  I _do_ use
something like "address@hidden day ago}" as a reasonably stable reference
point occasionally.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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