[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark

    On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Tom Lord wrote:
    > 1) the ancestry of their modified tree
    > 2) the complete contents of their modified tree
    > 3) input data for a patching program (let's call it "PATCH")
    > which, at the very least, satisfies the equation:
    > MOD_TREE = PATCH (this_diff, ORIG_TREE)
    > On the other hand, signing documents which represent a {(1),(3)} pair
    > with robust accuracy is, in most cases, much much less expensive than
    > signing {(1),(2)} pairs with robust accuracy.

    Not so.

    It may be less expensive in your world, but that's the whole point of git:
    it's _not_ less expensive in the git world.

    In the git world, 1 and 2 aren't even separate things. They go together.
    And you just sign it. End of story. It's so cheap to sign that it's not
    even funny.

    More importantly, signing 3 is meaningless. 3 only makes sense with a
    known starting point. You should never sign a patch without also saying
    what you're patching.

    And once you do that, 1+2 and 1+3 are _exactly_ the same thing.

    And since git always works on the 1+2 level, it would be inexcusably
    stupid to sign anything but that. 3 doesn't even exist per se, although
    it's obviously fully defined by 1+2.

    So I don't see your point. You complain about git signing, but you
    complain on grounds that do not _exist_ in git, and then your alternative
    (1+3) which is senseless in a git world doesn't actually end up being
    anything really different - just more expensive.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.022 / U:59.528 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site