On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 01:02:34AM +0100, Ulf Ochsenfahrt wrote:
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 03:37:50PM +0100, Ulf Ochsenfahrt wrote:
*snip*
Note that the way netsync is currently set up, every new revision is
first sent without any branch info, and then the branch info is
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 12:39 -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 07:13:39PM +0100, Ulf Ochsenfahrt wrote:
It doesn't entirely solve the problem, though.
1) it still doesn't give control over what someone can write to the db
2) it isn't possible to easily move branches
Not really commenting on anyone else's comments, but hopefully some
benefit of experience:
Just for a (slightly extreme) real world example: The company for
which I work holds *all* its source code in one database. _One_ of our
products is over 30G of source history. We have over 5000
Hi,
this was previously discussed here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.monotone.devel/4051
and here:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.monotone.devel/10444
So far I have been entirely unable to convince anyone that this is an
important topic, so let me try
Ulf Ochsenfahrt schrieb:
Second, it would lead to (potentially) lower efficiency. If the user has
new revisions which are children of revisions that he does not
officially has read-access to, then he has to also transmit the parent
revisions, even though these may already be present in the
On Friday 02 March 2007, Ulf Ochsenfahrt wrote:
Second, it would lead to (potentially) lower efficiency. If the user has
new revisions which are children of revisions that he does not
officially has read-access to, then he has to also transmit the parent
revisions, even though these may
You know, this wouldn't be such a problem if we could just teach
virtual domains to monotone, and have it select which database to use
for each session based on that. And really, it wouldn't have to be
very complicated either, would it?
Cheers,
Richard
--
Richard Levitte
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:13:39 +0100, Ulf
Ochsenfahrt [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
ulf Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
ulf You know, this wouldn't be such a problem if we could just teach
ulf virtual domains to monotone, and have it select which database to use
ulf
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 07:13:39PM +0100, Ulf Ochsenfahrt wrote:
It doesn't entirely solve the problem, though.
1) it still doesn't give control over what someone can write to the db
2) it isn't possible to easily move branches between domains
3) it isn't possible to sync the entire thing
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 03:37:50PM +0100, Ulf Ochsenfahrt wrote:
Consider the following case:
BranchA | B
Revision x |
You have no access to A, and both read and write access to B.
Right now, you can write a certificate stating that revision x is part
of branch B. If you have read
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 02 Mar 2007 19:13:39 +0100, Ulf Ochsenfahrt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
ulf Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
ulf You know, this wouldn't be such a problem if we could just teach
ulf virtual domains to monotone, and
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 03:37:50PM +0100, Ulf Ochsenfahrt wrote:
*snip*
Note that the way netsync is currently set up, every new revision is
first sent without any branch info, and then the branch info is sent
for that revision. So effectively every branch cert you send
12 matches
Mail list logo
