Re: On git 1.6 (novice's opinion)
- From
- demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 28, 2009, 10:33 UTC
- Message-ID
- <9b18b3110903280333t1b7ec8d9x252f7e67e0753796@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <49CCE72E.20081.258EE61F@Ulrich.Windl.rkdvmks1.ngate.uni-regensburg.de>
2009/3/27 Ulrich Windl <ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>:
Show 15 quoted lines
> On 27 Mar 2009 at 13:49, Michael J Gruber wrote: > >> Ulrich Windl venit, vidit, dixit 27.03.2009 08:21: > > [...] > >> Keyword substitution and cvs/svn style version numbers are independent >> issues. The sha1 describes a commit uniquely, one could use that as a >> keyword. > > However version numbers and time stamps have the property of being at least > partially ordered in respect of "newer/older". That property does not hold for > SHA-1 checksums. Just imagine suggesting users to upgrade from Microsoft > Word/004765c2a1e9771e886f0dbe87d4f89643cd6f70 to Microsoft > Word/00b7e6f51130f234a969c84ee9231a5ff7fc8a82 ;-)
The problem here is that in some "version control" systems the concept of "release version" has been conflated with "version control system revision number".
They arent the same thing, never were, and conflating the two only caused and causes trouble.
A "release version" is a *tag*, always has been or should have been really, and in git is in fact.
Cheers, yves
-- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"