On 04/08/2016 06:34 AM, J Decker wrote:
> 1) Hashes... once they're serliazed, can't 90% of the time they just
> be compared as strings? (The output of which fits in utf-8 as ascii
> subset esp if you're using 58)
Monotone did that, but migrated to using binary representation for
efficiency. Note
Making an installer :)
I can build in-tree, commit the built image, pivot root to the image
root and use that to track distributions, and allow just commit and
propagate to update?
___
Monotone-devel mailing list
Monotone-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:49:15PM +0200, Markus Wanner wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 11:37 PM, Stephen Leake wrote:
> > There's a version number in the internal format, so we don't need a flag
> > day (or maybe that was on a branch; anyway, we can add one). We do need
> > to maintain both formats for com
On 04/07/2016 11:37 PM, Stephen Leake wrote:
> There's a version number in the internal format, so we don't need a flag
> day (or maybe that was on a branch; anyway, we can add one). We do need
> to maintain both formats for compatibility with old databases.
There's a version identifier for things
Markus Wanner writes:
> On 04/07/2016 05:21 PM, Stephen Leake wrote:
>> Peter Stirling writes:
>>> I apologise for being late to the part here: Is the goal here to
>>> reduce the barrier to entry for automate clients (by using something
>>> which has a decent chance of having a parsing library i
Peter Stirling writes:
> I apologise for being late to the part here: Is the goal here to
> reduce the barrier to entry for automate clients (by using something
> which has a decent chance of having a parsing library in most
> languages)?
That is a reasonable goal.
But only if the current outpu
I apologise for being late to the part here: Is the goal here to reduce
the barrier to entry for automate clients (by using something which has
a decent chance of having a parsing library in most languages)?
On 06/04/16 14:15, Markus Wanner wrote:
On 04/06/2016 02:56 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
