[foreigner]

I understand why the bug IDs are hashes, but that's going to be pretty inconvenient for practical use. Yes I know we manage it with Git commit names, but bug IDs are printed and spoken much more than commits, e.g. when communicating with a test team, management, or even in release notes.

I wonder if we could use some sort of distributed naming scheme for this, similar to Blockchain DNS?

[fdye]

+1 to this commenter

Really cool idea, but I would second a shorter and sequential way of ID'ing bugs. Its common in QA flows to use the JIRA-like shorthand to discuss/assign tickets. <Proj alias>-<sequential num>. Proj-alias is usually like 3 letters/nums (project configurable). So like SEC-3640, QWE-123, etc. Human-readable/discussable bug ID is gonna be something desired. Hash could stay as an alternate for those with deeper GIT knowledge, but its gonna get verbose to discuss a ticket.

[jedberg]

It doesn't even have to be that complicated. How many bugs and contributors can a project have?

Add a bug_id_lockfile where you claim a namespace that starts with a letter, and if you sync up and someone has already claimed that namespace, you have to change and rename your bugs. The time of the checkin determines who gets it. There might be a couple bugs you have to rename, if you don't sync up right away.

So my bugs would start with A, yours with B, and so on. Once you get to 26 contributors you do two letters, etc.

[topogios]

Perhaps there is a way to use tagging for "aliasing" a given issue?

[password4321]

Someone said blockchain on HN, look out!

Only half-joking here: it probably wouldn't be too much work to incorporate hash cracking: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33704297

But you can't use just auto-incrementing IDs in a distributed system.

[wankle]

Blockchain is a terrific idea! Make it blockchain!! Not "block chain" like the git log but "blockchain" make all software use blockchain to make the world a better place for all of us!!!

[bryanlarsen]

The git log is a block chain.

[anonyme-honteux]

Nope the git log is a merkle tree. The blockchain is a merkle tree plus all the layers of overengineering you need to have a consensus algorithm. And usually you "need" a consensus algorithm mostly for ideological reasons. My view is that building trust is better than assuiming it can't or shouldn't exist.

[eudoxus]

To be pedantic, both git logs and blockchains are actually Merkle DAGs or Hash Graphs, whichever you prefer. All Merkle Trees are Merkle DAGs but not all Merkle DAGs are Merkle Trees.

[bryanlarsen]

Merkle tree is a technical term with a specific meaning.

Block chain is a fairly generic, badly misused term that I assert also covers the git log, which is actually a chain of cryptographic blocks where each block includes the hash of the previous. It even has a consensus algorithm. You can disagree, but your assertion is just an opinion in constrast to a misuse of the term Merkle tree.