Re: git mirror

[Derek Fawcus]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:59:00PM +0100, Riccardo Mottola wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 02/15/12 16:04, David Chisnall wrote:
> >On 15 Feb 2012, at 13:06, Quentin Math? wrote:
> >There are two issues that I'd like to see a good solution for with this:
> >
> >The first is that we lose a monotonic counter for revisions.  If someone 
> >has a bug, with svn you can say 'I think this is fixed in r12345, are you 
> >running an older revision than this?' and they can actually answer it.  
> >With git, you say 'I think this is fixed in 4f13bc56' and they say 'well, 
> >I'm running 5196f8a' and you say 'I have no idea what the relationship 
> >between the two is, one of us needs to go and look at the timeline and 
> >see, and it's not going to be me because you're the one with the problem' 
> >and they say 'fine, I don't care either, your project sucks'.

Well,  if one has a local git repository (i.e. you're using git),
then you can easily answer that question.

git describe <hash>
git describe --contains <hash>

one gives the tag before the hash,  the other the tag after.
They also say how many commits are between the tag and the hash.

There was discussion on the git list about adding 'generation numbers'
in order to make this sort of thing easier,  and diffs were proposed.
I don't know what became of them.

> I think this is a very good point which i hadn't thought before of and 
> is a very good point for SVN. It helps also a lto when doing bisection 
> search when doing bug searching (which is one thing where SVN is 
> superior to CVS where you need to use dates for that, since revisions 
> are only on files and messing around with date-stamps is boring).

Well,  for bisection,  one wouldn't do it manually,  but with the
aid of 'git bisect'

.pdf