Re: VCS comparison table
- From
- Matthew D. Fuller <fullermd@over-yonder.net>
- Date
- Oct 22, 2006, 10:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20061022100028.GQ75501@over-yonder.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <20061021233014.d4525a1d.seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 11:30:14PM -0400 I heard the voice of Sean, and lo! it spake thus:
Show 8 quoted lines
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:23:37 -0400 > Jeff Licquia <jeff@licquia.org> wrote: > > > > OK. So you are conflating the two. Could someone who isn't > > comment? > > No, actually i'm not. Single revno's or your dotted revno's _both_ > have the same property.
I think Jeff's actually meaning the other way around. We're confident through experience of the utility of the single revnos. We're NOT (at least, I'm not) so convinced of the utility and usability of the dotted ones; they haven't gone through the crucible of experience yet.
During the dotted-decimal discussion, I favored numbering from the merge point (rather than the ancestral point) for a lot of the same reasons brought up here. e.g., the log-ish output would look something like:
200 199 199.3 199.2 199.1 198 [...]
See <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar-ng/2006q3/017773.html> for instance.
Of course, now we have them, and they number from ancestors. So after that's in a couple releases, we'll get to see how it works in practice.
--
Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.