bakul at bitblocks.com
Sat Sep 14 07:48:58 AEST 2019
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:17:51 -0700 Larry McVoy <lm at mcvoy.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:11:04PM +0200, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> > I for one am so happy to have git that i cannot tell you how much
> > that is. I have used rcs, cvs, subversion, back to cvs,
> > mercurial over the years,, and for some small things also sccs.
> > All of it has been a pain here or there. Yes, the weave. Schily
> > wants to provide real changeset support for sccs (tagging is real
> > problem), i think.
> I don't know why, BitKeeper does that and is open source under
> a liberal license (Apache v2).
This is because in git the "id" of a changeset is its sha1
checksum. Given that, you can only reference it in a
subsequent changeset. This is a problem in that there is no
git built-in way to correlate a built binary with a particular
changeset id of its sources but you end up using your own
convention. E.g. set env. var VERSION or some such to the id
during the compile step but it is a bother.
More information about the TUHS