Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: user-friendly hash formats, redux

[Jerome Fisher]

Nathaniel Smith wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 08:24:57PM +0100, Jerome Fisher wrote:
>  
>
> > I'm not a fan of unstable revision IDs, though nobody seems to complain
> > about this in BitKeeper. BitKeeper uses unstable revision IDs and
> > stable, global, human-unfriendly keys. The user interface is so focused
> > on the former that users are often unaware of the latter (which can be a
> > bad thing). Note that the BitKeeper's revision IDs do tend to stabilise
> > over time, especially in the common case of having a central,
> > authoritative repository that people regularly sync with.
> >    
>
> BitKeeper is kind of different, though, isn't it?  Somewhat more like
> Arch, in that BK has "repositories" as first-class objects, and you
> can talk about them by name and stuff?
>  
A BitKeeper repository is (more or less; I'm grossly oversimplifying) 
conceptually equivalent to a monotone database, except that you can only 
have one working space using it. A BitKeeper repository *does* have a 
unique ID (which users basically never need to know about), but I don't 
know whether this has any influence on its assignment of changeset 
revision numbers. I doubt it.

> Real questions, actually, I've never seen BK in action :-)
>  
Neither have I, except briefly for evaluation purposes some years ago. I 
have been following its development quite closely, though.

Regards,
Jerome