On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Ville M. Vainio <[email protected]> wrote: > Now that the "short sentinel" idea is sort of dead, perhaps it could > be resurrected by "sentinel compression"? New sentinels would *always* > be of the current kind, but old sentinels would be short (single > running base64 index, without table).
Iirc, this would not greatly reduce the length of gnx's, and it would certainly make them less informative. tiny urls rely on a central server to make them compact, I think. We don't have such a thing. The fundamental problem is that clones must have a global, immutable, identity. The present gnx scheme guarantees this without a central server. At present I don't see bzr assuming the role of a central server to ensure that newly-created nodes get a unique, preferably short, identity. Edward -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
