D Programming Language source (dmd, phobos, etc.) has moved to github

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.911.1295903507.4748.digitalmars-d-announce at puremagic.com...
> On Monday 24 January 2011 13:04:27 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Johannes Pfau" <spam at example.com> wrote in message
>> news:20110124163418.3880a154 at jpf-Satellite-A100...
>>
>> > OK, here are some revisions:
>> > DMD:
>> > 2.051 seems to be revision 1374ba96fa5516d9595fa61b09015197a8b84385
>> >
>> >   Note: The changelog on the website says release date Nov 7 but it's
>> >   more like 20th December.
>> >   Note2: The git repository contains a object.h file in that revision
>> >   which isn't in the dmd zip.
>> >
>> > 2.050 50fb3d60811b203ac50a0d9169bf15a28881c9b5
>> >
>> >   Note: The git repository contains a argtypes.c file in that revision
>> >   which isn't in the dmd zip.
>> >
>> > 2.049 ab38d58ecb78924d631f7f77863fff2a6c234eb6
>> > 2.048 bcf720fe079fd979fa9e81f63ab2de3dde9284dc
>> > 2.047 ad4ae4a4fd3dbdb591ebc288378a7200d2ed6d48
>> >
>> >   Note: In the dmd zip, there are 7 additional lines in
>> >   root/root.c. Those were later added to the repository, but
>> >   ad4ae4a4fd3dbdb591ebc288378a7200d2ed6d48 seems to be the correct
>> >   commit.
>>
>> Does Git really not have real revision/changeset numbers?
>
> It's SHA1 hashes. And actually, considering how prevalent branching and 
> merging
> is with git (_everyone_ has their own fork of the repository), I question 
> that
> revision/changeset numbers would work anyway. The fact that you can 
> reorder
> commits wouldn't help either. So, no. Git doesn't have revision or 
> changeset
> numbers.
>
> However, the git commands where you give it a revision's SHA1 only need 
> enough
> of the SHA1 to uniquely identify it, so you rarely need to type the whole 
> thing
> even when you're giving it the SHA1. Now, I suppose that makes things like 
> the
> revision number for dmd 2.049 uglier, but git is very much distributed and 
> not
> centralized in terms of how it's set up, so revision numbers in the SVN 
> sense
> just wouldn't make sense.
>

Not that I've actually used DVCSes much yet, but my understanding is that 
the same can be set of Hg and yet Hg handles revision/changeset numbers just 
fine. The nice things (plural) about those is that they're both readable and 
comparable.