-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 4/28/09 3:26 AM, Dave Cridland wrote: > On Tue Apr 28 03:12:27 2009, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >> > Also, I think the examples should still have the sequence numbers >> > (which is I believe preferred implementation). Use of hashes can be >> > noted in implementation notes. >> >> I disagree. The spec says that the version ID is opaque. If the examples >> include only version IDs that are *not* opaque, developers will ignore >> the text and focus only on the examples. >> >> > I think he's right - it's impossible to order two hashes, so "real" > implementations - those capable of producing intermediate pushes - are > going to use some form of "ver" with strict ordering properties, and the > simplest way to demonstrate this is with a strictly increasing integer > sequence, which leaves the examples clear (for instance, in the point 3 > explanatory text of example 3) > > Having other examples which use a hash is also useful, for the minimal > implementation guidelines.
I'm skeptical about this. People will look at the examples, not the text. > FWIW, I'd also suggest adding some text guiding implementors, and in > particular reinstating some text warning against using timestamps. We already had that text. It's easy enough for me to add it back. Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkn3Um4ACgkQNL8k5A2w/vxYqgCeI4SDd5yIskxRV7bfRaLhO3nc H2gAnjieSotfT2wecD+2PuD5cCUjIqL7 =2bM3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
