[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone
From: |
Thomas Moschny |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Jan 2008 09:20:45 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20071204.744707) |
On Tuesday 29 January 2008 Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> My current feeling is that separating out signer from author is a bad
> idea. The cost of having them is paid all the time
> different identities to worry about every time you print a log
> message,
First, we already have this situation with the commit messages. With the
proposal in its last form, there will only be additional author fields in the
tag, suspend, and test-result certs, of which we don't have that many.
Second, we should probably ask our users what they really want. And if I
remember correctly there were voices (from the Pidgin devs?) asking even for
being able to store several authors. We also should have a look at what other
VCSs do here - does e.g. git discriminate between author and signer?
Also, I don't think that printing the signer for log etc. is appropriate at
all. The combination of signer and correct signature determines whether I'm
actually accepting a cert, and does not necessarily count as the actual
payload of the cert.
> The cost of not having them is this annoyance with database rebuilds, which
> are *very* rare, and for them ad hoc techniques suffice. (For instance:
> just munge a note about the original author into the commit message
> programmatically.)
Uh. This means that e.g. front ends would have to parse that again? And how do
you know whether it was munged in programmatically or by hand?
- Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, (continued)
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Markus Schiltknecht, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Moschny, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Markus Schiltknecht, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Moschny, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Markus Schiltknecht, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Moschny, 2008/01/28
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Re: Future of monotone, Pavel Cahyna, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Thomas Keller, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Derek Scherger, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Nathaniel Smith, 2008/01/28
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone,
Thomas Moschny <=
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Bruce Stephens, 2008/01/29
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Julio M. Merino Vidal, 2008/01/29
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Bruce Stephens, 2008/01/29
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Julio M. Merino Vidal, 2008/01/29
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Markus Schiltknecht, 2008/01/29
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Nathaniel Smith, 2008/01/29
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Markus Schiltknecht, 2008/01/29
- RE: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Kelly F. Hickel, 2008/01/29
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Markus Schiltknecht, 2008/01/29
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone, Bruce Stephens, 2008/01/28