Because it is distributed. If sequential numbering is used two disconnected clients can happen to use the same number for different artifacts.
Regards, Stan Stanislav Paskalev On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Scott Doctor <sc...@scottdoctor.com> wrote: > > Why does Fossil use a hash for an entries identity instead of sequential > numbering? Seems simply using the rowid of the associated database table > would be more meaningful and practical than those long strings of arbitrary > numbers. > > -- > ------------ > Scott Doctor > sc...@scottdoctor.com > --------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users