Nathaniel Smith wrote:
The problem isn't that it's impossible, it's that it doesn't actually
help solve any of the problems we need to solve, as far as I can tell.
Ok. Such as?
Well... umm... merging is kinda The Problem :-).
I guess I'm not seeing the problem yet,
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
To expand: I'll assume everyone knows about the criss-cross merge
case, which forces us to choose more distant ancestors in some cases,
or else risk silently corrupting code.
I don't. Is there a reference?
(This problem seems specific to the semantics of rename; there
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 03:56:18PM -0700, K. Richard Pixley wrote:
Ok, so, um... what happens when a revision I trust arrives, but is
derived from a revision I don't trust? What ends up in my repository?
The actual rule is currently, "if th
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:39:41 -0700, K. Richard
Pixley [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This sounds like the beginning of a complete redesign of the monotone
authentication mechanism. I assume there's space for user
authentication
Start with an empty file, f0. Apply some initial content, delta1.
f0 + delta1 = f1
It occurs to me that if I now apply a change, delta2, to this file,
(tree, subtree, repository, whatever):
f1 + delta2 = f2
And then I back out that change by applying the inverse delta2, delta2',
then:
f2 +
Emile Snyder wrote:
Can you clarify at all what sort of support an SCM could give you to let
you have 128 concurrent developers on one branch all churning a given
file?
I wasn't necessarily thinking of them on the same branch.
Emile Snyder wrote:
These all seem like nice things,
Just reading the manual yesterday and the obvious question came to mind.
Why SHA1 instead of serials?
The manual suggested that any reasonable alternative be offered. So
here it is. The obvious alternative in my mind is a serial number. I
understand that there's a problem in trying to provide
Timothy Brownawell wrote:
This is why I suggested that the repository be named. Presumably, the name
would be based on domain name, but the real point is that domain names
follow hierarchical delegation.
But how is this enforced?
The same way monotone currently enforces
. However, I can also see a desire to allow only those such
changes which also come from a trusted place; that is, a refinement of
what will be accepted.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 19 Apr 2005 08:54:02 -0700, K. Richard
Pixley [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
rich The same way monotone
