On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:39:49PM +0300, Baruch Burstein wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:03 PM, j. van den hoff > <[1]veedeeh...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > and it really is just irrelevant for the simple envisaged convenience > measure: being able to use the ranks instead of the hashes for > identifying checkins in _my_ clone when interacting with fossil. > > I am starting to agree. When I used hg, I didn't usually even remember the > local numbers. I would usually look them up in the timeline of recent > checkins, and then use them for diffs/branches/rollbacks/whatnot. It was > just easier than hashes. So the renumbering would not be critical.
I agree, but the only *potential* problem would be when people blindly use the sequential number when posting links on mailing list or forum. It could become confusing when the link point to another valid link, but not the good one. -- Martin G. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
