Re: Referring to revisions in the git future.

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Kastrup writes:
 > Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
 > 
 > >> For example, in response to my earlier post, Stefan responded that
 > >> SHA1s aren't that easy to recognize and you'll get too many false
 > >> positives.  My initial rebuttal was "Eh?!", but a more constructive
 > >> response is, so we establish a convention of prefixing with
 > >> "sha:" or "SHA:".
 > >
 > > I'd rather go with "git:", but yes that's also the first obvious answer
 > > that came to my mind.
 > 
 > git: indicates a transfer method.

I don't have a problem with that interpretation, the full format
being:

    git://<repo>.<suborg>.hosting-provider.tld/<40 hex digits>

This would put some strain on Savannah orgs, but hardly impossible.
Oh, yeah, you're right -- it's incompatible with current usage by git
itself, which would be

    git://hosting-provider.tld/<path-to-repo>#<40 hex digits>

IIRC.  So then it would be the somewhat unintuitive "git:#".

 > 40 hexadecimal digits are pretty unambiguous on their own.

Sure, but I had in mind abbreviations as well.