Re: [fossil-users] RFC regarding short UUID for some command line use.
On 08/03/15 06:48, Andy Bradford wrote: There have recently been some changes to make short UUIDs more prominent, however, I think that new checkins should still display the full UUID: [---] Thoughts? None other than a simple I agree. /Jan ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] RFC regarding short UUID for some command line use.
Le dimanche 8 mars 2015, Jan Danielsson jan.m.daniels...@gmail.com a écrit : On 08/03/15 06:48, Andy Bradford wrote: There have recently been some changes to make short UUIDs more prominent, however, I think that new checkins should still display the full UUID: [---] Thoughts? None other than a simple I agree. /Jan I agree . -- Martin G. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] RFC regarding short UUID for some command line use.
Thus said Joe Mistachkin on Sat, 07 Mar 2015 22:05:48 -0800: Personally, I agree. I find having the abbreviated UUID displayed in this particular context to be quite disconcerting. What about some of the other command line checkin contexts that were changed in [c62e94f8a3]: $ fossil branch new test trunk New branch: d4d5c24326 ... $ fossil merge --integrate test $ fossil ci -m three Closed: 5703dae21d New_Version: da04545d2a Thanks, Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 400054fbf1a0 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] RFC regarding short UUID for some command line use.
Hello, There have recently been some changes to make short UUIDs more prominent, however, I think that new checkins should still display the full UUID: $ fossil ci -m test New_Version: 36eb94ea54 vs $ fossil ci -m test New_version: 36eb94ea547e5905b41e6b447efbfd1184311b23 I think I still prefer to see the full UUID in this particular context, anyone else have an opinion either way on the matter? For command line use, I think it makes sense to display short UUIDs where terminal line width is perhaps limiting, but this UUID does not run the risk of ever going beyond 80 characters. Thoughts? Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 400054fbe2e7 ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] RFC regarding short UUID for some command line use.
Andy Bradford wrote: There have recently been some changes to make short UUIDs more prominent, however, I think that new checkins should still display the full UUID: Personally, I agree. I find having the abbreviated UUID displayed in this particular context to be quite disconcerting. -- Joe Mistachkin ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
