On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 07:41:04PM +0100, Eric Kow wrote: > Hi David, > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:14:20 -0400, David Roundy wrote: > > Here's a quick fix for issue27. I've been resistent on this, but it > > seems that since so many people don't know how to use darcs properly > > (particularly when they're first starting by converting old > > repositories using tailor), it'll be simples to just make darcs more > > robust. > > Hooray for defensive programming! > > Now, I realise that I'm being a pain here by quibbling over details, but > since we are adding junk anyway, I still think we should prefer > deterministic junk (e.g. hash of patch-and-creation-context) over > non-deterministic junk (random numbers) :-D > > To justify this, I could invoke a belief in Murphy's Law, i.e. that if > anything could get Tailor users up in arms, it will get Tailor users up > in arms. (For the interested, the "anything" in question is that > tailoring the same repository twice will now produce two subtly > different repositories)... > > But I suppose the real reason is not so much the Tailor users, but > my own natural squeamishness against introducing randomness when it > is possible to avoid doing so. > > What do you think?
I think deterministic junk is considerably harder to produce, and requires proof that it is generated correctly, while non-deterministic is easy to produce. We can always change it to be deterministic later. David
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
