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.
_______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
