Re: Numeric Revision Names?

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Oct 3, 2008, 17:14 UTC
Message-ID: <20081003171434.GC30592@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20081003115557.08d80c2f.stephen@exigencecorp.com>

On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 11:55:57AM -0500, Stephen Haberman wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> For projects that do have a central authority (e.g. internal corporate
> projects), revision numbers make more sense.
> 
> Granted, they are on separate branches (like svn), but the nice thing
> about them is that they are monotonically increasing. E.g. our qa
> people love numbers--the bug fix ticket says dev just put in
> r100...qa/production box says it is on r95. Doesn't matter the
> branch/whatever, they know the box doesn't have r100. Now, right, if
> its r105, it is trickier, although we also throw in branch name (e.g.
> topica-r100) which means no false positives but can lead to false
> negatives.

If you are constraining yourself to a central repo, then you could just add a receive hook that tags each new commit with a monotonically increasing revision number. Clients would get the tags upon fetch.

Something like the following (totally untested, and probably needs to handle locking and errors more sanely) in the post-receive hook:

  n=`cat revnumber 2>/dev/null || echo 0`
  while read old new branch; do
    git rev-list $old..$new |
      while read rev; do
        n=$(($n+1))
        git tag r$n $rev
      done
  done
  echo $n >revnumber

-Peff