On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 1:22 PM, j. van den hoff <veedeeh...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 12:58:35 +0200, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> > wrote:0. > intentionally undocumented or did nobody manage to add it to the manpages? > Intentional - see the comment line at the start of that block. > 1. > I don't hope this happens with priority (i.e. only if the integer is not > the leading segment of a valid checkin hash)? > See the 2nd and 3rd lines - those ensure that it only matches a whole number. > 2. > for the layman: what exactly is the record ID? obviously it's not simply > the chronological checkin number? Almost - it's the db entry record ID (blob.rid table/field). They tend to be chronological, but philosophically speeking that's not guaranteed (except that autoincrementing basically guarantees it). -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ http://gplus.to/sgbeal
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
