3 ms·

I'm still in camp subversion, my main gripe about git is the lack of a linear rev number for master. The rest of it is complexity you can either take or leave.

• dspillett 5y ago
  > my main gripe about git is the lack of a linear rev number for master Unless you are using git as a centralised SCM, the concept of a linear revision doesn't quite match up. Of course many workflows between different branch and people do eventually end up with there being a "master master" (or a main main to use more up-to-date terminology), and workflows for single dev projects naturally do, perhaps in those cases you could wrap relevant git commands in something that increments a build number stored in a file before relevent actions. It perhaps do away with a simple increasing revision number and use the date of merge on that branch, which would at least always be increasing.
  • pc86 5y ago
    Most people are using git in a centralized fashion whether they realize it or not.
    • Aloha 5y ago
      You took the words out of my mouth. They're using git with Gitea or Github, or Gitlab, there is a defacto centralized master.
    • dspillett 5y ago
      That is a very correct point. Though it isn't git's failing when people use a distributed SCM in a centralised manner and expect it to be optimised as such!
• uvatbc 5y ago
  git rev-list --count ${GIT_HASH}