On 16/05/10 21:26, James Vega wrote:
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 06:09:15PM +0200, Tony Mechelynck wrote:
I
don't know if Mercurial hashes are carried over (the short hash for
Bram's vim73 parent to my latest merge is listed as c6f1aa1e9f32
with the description "Add 'relativenumber' patch from Markus
Heidelberg") and anyway they aren't taken over in the resulting
executable.
The hashes are global to all clones of a given repository. That is, any
commit which is shared among clones will have the same hash. That's how
Mercurial knows which changesets have been applied. The changeset index
is local to each clone simply as a convenience so you don't have to type
out full hashes.
Ah, I see. I wonder how Mercurial makes sure that a changeset I import
will never have a hash (not even a 12-nybble "short hash") already used
by an earlier "local commit". Saying that "it will never happen" because
the apriori probability is thought to be low strikes me as the wrong way
to set up server software (see Murphy's law). Oh, well, I'll worry about
it when I see it happen.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
Ask not for whom the telephone bell tolls ... if thou art in the
bathtub, it tolls for thee.
--
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
