Dotted revno "algebra"

[Ben Finney]

Eric Siegerman <lists08-bzr at davor.org> writes:

> I for one would care *hugely*.  I find there to be a great deal
> of difference in usability between revnos and revids:
>   - Revnos mean something to me.  Sure they're local to a
>     particular branch, but within that frame of reference they
>     provide a partial ordering that I find quite comprehensible,
>     and very useful despite being only partial.

+1.

The revno tells me something useful and relevant in the context of the
branch, and in the context of other revisions. The revid, though, is an
opaque token.

>   - I can, and often do, type revnos -- even long ones like your
>     example.  Revids?  Forget it!  (I touch type, so the physical
>     *and mental* context switch of taking my hands off the
>     keyboard to cut'n'paste costs me more than typing a dozen
>     characters.

Heh. I use GNU Screen <URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/screen/>, so I
don't need to take my hands from the keyboard to navigate and
copy-and-paste. But that's still a big difference from being able to
type a meaningful revno.

> By the same token, others have proposed numbering dotted revisions
> based on their merge point, rather than their branch point. I find
> that idea to be rather horrifying. Under such a scheme, IIUC, rev.
> 47.1.1 would be an *ancestor* of rev 47, not a descendant.

I agree that such a scheme would be jarringly inconsistent with my
expectations for dotted revision sequences. 47.1.1 should be
conceptually “later than” 47.

-- 
 \        “Visitors are expected to complain at the office between the |
  `\                     hours of 9 and 11 a.m. daily.” —hotel, Athens |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney