Nick Sabalausky wrote: > "David Nadlinger" <s...@klickverbot.at> wrote in message > news:ihkub8$1ia4$1...@digitalmars.com... >> On 1/24/11 10:20 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >>>>> Does Git really not have real revision/changeset numbers? >>>> >>>>[.] >>>> >>> >>> Not that I've actually used DVCSes much yet, but my understanding is >>> that the same can be set of Hg and yet Hg handles revision/changeset >>> numbers just >>> fine. The nice things (plural) about those is that they're both readable >>> and >>> comparable. >> >> Hg has no �real revision/changeset numbers� either - there is a >> more-or-less-monotonic number assigned to the various changesets, but >> it's only valid for a single, *local* checkout, using them e.g. in a NG >> post would be a very wrong thing to do >> (http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/RevisionNumber). >> > > Even without really using DVCSes it always seemed clear to me that an > incremented number would be relative to a particular branch. So if you > specify what branch you're talking about (which could usually just be > assumed to be the main official one unless otherwise specified), shouldn't > that be enough? > >> Git supports a relative notation as well, which is what I personally want >> to use most of the time anyway (e.g. HEAD^, master~4, something@{"1 year >> ago"}, .). > > Ah, so it *does* then? Great! Happen to have a link that explains it? >
This covers most of it to see what's possible: http://progit.org/book/ch6-1.html You can customize git log with a format string, try this for example: git log --pretty=format:"%h - %an, %ar : %s %d"
