On Nov 4, 2011, at 10:03 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 3:01 AM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
> On Nov 4, 2011, at 8:43 PM, Jed Brown wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 18:27, Matthew Knepley <knepley at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am trying to understand, but having problems.
> >
> > 1) 20985 does not change anything here. Do you mean 20989?
> >
> > Please, please, please use the SHA1. The number is meaningless since it's
> > different for everyone. I cannot forgive Mercurial for printing these
> > numbers, they cause nothing but trouble.
>
> Bug report to Mercurial folks?
>
> They also show the SHA1 at all times.
Yes, but as Jed observes most users don't understand that the 20989 number
is meaningless while the SHA1 number is useful hence lots of time is wasting
when people send the wrong number. This has already happened numerous times on
petsc-maint and petsc-dev (I am a guilty party).
If the door is a push door then why the hell would you put a pull handle on
it? So why list a useless number right before the useful number (that is a sign
of bad design) just skip the useless number.
Bad designs deserve bug reports just like errors deserve bug reports.
Barry
>
> Matt
>
> Barry
>
>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments
> is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments
> lead.
> -- Norbert Wiener
