On 2005-11-09, David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 04:18:40PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: >> The trouble with that is that Darcs plays the commutation game, which >> invalidates any form of end-to-end hash. The obvious solution would >> be to compute hashes in a minimal context, but I'm not sure whether >> that would be computationally feasible. > > I think I see. You mean to store the patches as always, but to compute > (and check) their hashes in a minimal context? That's a clever idea. > Somehow I've been caught up on the "signed patch bundle" idea, which > requires a new repository format, and didn't think of the idea of storing > patches in their current format, but commuting them into another context > for hashing.
This has, however, been suggested before (although perhaps not as explicitly): http://www.abridgegame.org/pipermail/darcs-devel/2005-March/001388.html ... I've been thinking that it might be better to record patches in a "minimal context" ... This would enable support for signed patches and "freely floating patches". ... patches could also include an unsigned version of themselves for "current/repository context" ... http://www.abridgegame.org/pipermail/darcs-devel/2005-March/001401.html ... which could be stored as a light patch-of-a-patch (the modifications should be just changes in line numbers, mergers, and so on, right?). -- Tuomo _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
