Re: On git 1.6 (novice's opinion)

> On 1 Apr 2009 at 9:54, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> 
>> "Ulrich Windl" <ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> writes:
>>
>>>> Not to mention that you can have multiple roots (multiple commits with
>>>> no parent) in git repository; besides independent branches (like
>>>> 'man', 'html' or 'todo') it is usually result of absorbing or
>>>> subtree-merging other projects.  In 'master' branch there are 5 roots
>>>> or more: joined 'git-tools' (mailinfo / mailsplit), absorbed gitweb,
>>>> and subtree-merged gitk and git-gui.  And here you would again have
>>>> multiple commits with the same number...
>>> Which would not harm, because it would be version N from committer X. Any if 
>>> committer X merges from anything else, the next number would be > N. I did not 
>>> claim that my method makes a total ordering of commits and merges possible.
>> Neither does it make the numbers unique for committer X.
>>
>> If commiter X commits a successor to commit N, it's labeled N+1. If
>> later, he creates another branch from commit N, and commit, the new,
>> other commit will be labeled N+1.
> 
> Correct: They live in a parallel universe. But on the long term they will either 
> vanish or be merged in which case the number will be "> N+1" (on the main branch). 
> So we have a branch plus a sequence number all the time.
> 
>> This means even within a repository, you cannot say things like
>> "commit number N", so, OK, you have numerical IDs, but you can't use
>> them.
> 
> I never wanted to have such a thing (using those numbers for commit).
>