On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 13:42, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 28.11.2010 06:59, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 27, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Bruce Momjian<bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Who's going to be the first to say that being git-centric can't ever be
>>>>> a bad thing? ;-)
>>>
>>>> At least for me, referring to it that way makes finding the original
>>>> patch an order of magnitude faster (git show hash). YMMV.
>>>
>>> [ shrug... ] You need to take the long view here. We're not working on
>>> the assumption that git is the last SCM this project will ever use.
>>> Even granting that it is, I don't think git hashes are adequately stable;
>>> loading the code into a different repository would likely result in new
>>> hashes. And AFAIK there is no mechanism that would fix hash references
>>> embedded in commit log messages (or the code).
>>
>> Well, if we ever did want to rewrite the entire development history
>> (why?) I suppose we could rewrite SHA hashes in the commit messages at
>> the same time. But I think one big advantage of git (or svn, or
>> probably any other post-CVS VCS) is that it has unique IDs for
>> commits. Referring to them as "the commit by so-and-so on
>> such-and-such a date" just on the off chance that we might someday
>> decide to replace those unique IDs with another set of unique IDs
>> doesn't make much sense to me. It makes things more difficult now in
>> the hope that, ten years from now when we switch systems again, it'll
>> be easier to use unstructured text to construct a search command to
>> root through the development history than it will be to map a git
>> commit id onto a commit id in the new system. That's possible, but
>> it's far from obvious. We are database professionals; we ought to
>> believe in the value of unique keys.
>
> Let's do both: "This fixes the bug introduced by the foobar patch from Sep
> 12th (git commitid a2c23897bc).
>
> I like to see the date of the referred patch in the commit message, to get
> an immediate idea of whether it was a 5-year old change or something from
> the previous day. But the commitid is also nice so you can immediately
> copy-paste that without reading through the old commit logs.
+1.
Having the git id is very useful, and putting the date in makes it no
*less* informational than what we had before, if/when we move away
from git and it's hashes.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/