Re: Mercurial "r####" numbers are not stable, use commit ids
Ar an dara lá de mí Eanair, scríobh Stephen J. Turnbull:
I like Mercurial a little less every day.
We did have plenty of discussion about what revision control system to move
to, it was not a decision made in haste. I am very happy with Mercurial.
By the way, please don’t use branches when pushing to the trunk, when the
rest of us do a hg fetch those branches are applied locally, and we have to
explicitly merge with default if we want things to work intuitively. Search
for bytecomp-coding-system-2008-10-29 in the output of hg log if you want to
see an instance of this.
(I suppose you could merge locally either, but make sure to actually do
that!)
*Always* post the log messages or commit ID, *never* the r numbers.
The r numbers are *not stable* across repositories, and just confuse
the readers.
You can get the commit IDs with "hg log" or "hg id".
Somebody wrote to me:
> Aidan thought one of your commits between r4532 and r4534 influenced
> the handling of Xresource.
This is what I get, fingering Aidan, not me, amusingly enough.
(Amusing, because this isn't real evidence that Aidan had anything to
do with it. I have no idea what commits the OP's revisions 4532:4534
might refer to.)
I was talking to Matsl in IRC; I had been looking at the merge in
http://hg.debian.org/hg/xemacs/xemacs?cs=4a7c4ccac2fe , using the trunk
r-number, so yeah, the listed commits are correct. The code that struck me
turned out to have been from this:
http://hg.debian.org/hg/xemacs/xemacs?cs=726060ee587c
If it was actually all mechanical, then it wasn’t that change that affected
him, but I suspect there was some hand-coding to it.
--
¿Dónde estará ahora mi sobrino Yoghurtu Nghe, que tuvo que huir
precipitadamente de la aldea por culpa de la escasez de rinocerontes?
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta