--On Monday, October 26, 2009 05:44:42 PM -0500 Andrew Deason
<[email protected]> wrote:
In this case, though, I think Shawn pretty much has a plan to kill
off numerical change IDs.
Bah.
The main reason for this is that when gerrit moves to git storage, the
plan is that it will operate as a distributed system. Change IDs
which are particular to a single server won't allow that kind of
distribution to occur.
Yes, the centralization of gerrit is what I thought would let them
exist. If it's moving towards something else, then okay. I may find it
annoying, but okay.
It's not just annoying; it's a serious usability problem. There is value
in identifying changes, patches, bugs, commits, etc with identifiers like
small integers or short names, because those are easy to remember,
recognize, and use in conversation. A SHA-1 hash has none of these
properties, and while it may work fine and even have advantages for
following links in a web browser or using a git client, it is not
appropriate for human communication.
I think in this case, usability is more important than having the code
review system be distributed rather than centralized.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
