At the moment no. As what I'm mostly using it for at the moment is a local mirror of SVN most of my dealings with them are tangental (e.g. I want to use git-rebase --interactive to squoosh n little changes into one changeset, so I have to read back in the log and just copy the first 8-10 characters and bam I'm done). I imagine if I were interacting with people and maybe verbally referring to them it might be more cumbersome to memorize the hex string vice a 5 digit decimal number, but if most of that kind of interaction were via email I can't see it makes a whole lot of difference (only my paste buffer can tell :).
In a way I like that the revision numbers aren't sequential integers because it helps you (or at least helped me :) break the mental block of a more RCS-y / CVS-y mindset where you have a simple, more linear 1-2-3 chain of revisions and think more along the line of a tree of changes that can be pruned and grafted into whatever order I want. Maybe the lack of sequential-ness does away with the illusion of ordering (another reason I never really liked branching in SVN (aside from the complete lack of builtin memory about where things were merged from) was that it disturbed the continuous sequence of versions illusion the numeric revisions give of (or again, that at least I picked up :)).
Also remember that under the hood Mercurial has the same kind of hash-based revision tokens as git; revision numbers are only valid for one particular instance of a repository. If you need to communicate with anyone who's done independent development their repo's numbers will have diverged and you'll have to use the changeset id anyhow since those do correspond globally.
Update: minor wording tweaks.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
The cake is a lie.
|