VCS comparison table

[Jakub Narebski]

Aaron Bentley wrote:
>> The naming in git really is beautiful and beautifully simple.
> 
> Well, you've got to admit that those names are at least superficially
> ugly. 

If you want pretty name, you tag it. Tags are exchanged during 
fetch/push operation. And you can have pretty names of revisions
like v1.4.3
 
>> It's not monotonically increasing from one revision to the next, but
>> I've never found that to be an issue. Of course, we do still use our
>> own "simple" names for versioning the releases and snapshots of
>> software we manage with git, and that's where being able to easily
>> determine "newer" or "older" by simple numerical examination is
>> important. I've honestly never encountered a situation where I was
>> handed two git sha1 sums and wished that I could do the same thing.
> 
> What's nice is being able see the revno 753 and knowing that "diff -r
> 752..753" will show the changes it introduced.  Checking the revo on a
> branch mirror and knowing how out-of-date it is.

Huh? If you want what changes have been introduced by commit 
c3424aebbf722c1f204931bf1c843e8a103ee143, you just do

# git diff c3424aebbf722c1f204931bf1c843e8a103ee143

(or better "git show" instead of "git diff" or "git diff-tree").
If you give only one commit (only one revision) git automatically
gives diff to its parent(s).


By the way, is referring to revision by it's revno _fast_?
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland