On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email protected]> wrote: > --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.
While that may be (and i'd rather have the small change IDs, personally) the value in not maintaining a forked gerrit is more important yet. So, we need to find an answer and not just say "no". -- Derrick _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
