On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:28:22 +0200, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
That's the same exact concept, isn't it? My understanding is that a
clone of
a DVCS repository *is* a distinct DVCS repository. So, yea, like I said,
you
have to specify "which repository". The "common dev" repository. The
"main
stable repository". The "only shared repository this small project
actually
has". Or "Bob's repository" for what little that would be worth.
OK, I see your point. However, I would avoid using such a way to refer to
commits, where mistaking one half of it may still point towards a commit,
however a completely unrelated one.
But it's extremely rare not to have at least one *common* repository that
everyone pushes/pulls to.
Um, why do you think people wrote DVCS systems? They could have just
souped up SVN with local commits and proper merging etc. (I heard SVN was
going to do that anyway.)
I don't understand why you think I'm claiming anything of the sort.
I was under the impression you thought commit numbers somehow magically
propagated themselves throughout all clones of the repository ("distinct
repository was ambiguous"), since I saw no point in referring to a
revision number that's only valid for the copy on your hard drive. I
didn't think you implied the scenario of making your repository remotely
accessible.
There are plenty of things about *any* DVCS that are going to confuse
people
who try to treat it like SVN. If that was a valid reason not to do
something
a certain way, then Hg/Git/etc would all have to *be* SVN.
An analogy to this mis-feature would be D compiling valid C code in a
subtly different manner than C. D explicitly avoids this, with good reason.
Also, saying that SHA-1 hash collisions are "very rare" is a bit of an
understatement.
Point is, it's possible and it's going to happen at least to someone, and
frankly, such things *have* happened. Winning the lottery and getting
hit by
lighting are *extremely* rare, and yet there are a *lot* of people who
have
had it happen. The problem is they're taking "rare" (doesn't matter what
superlative is used) and pretending it's the same as "impossible".
Airplane
crashes and major earthquakes are extremely rare, but they sure as hell
plan
for what happens should such an event occur.
I think you're more likely to simultaneously get hit by a lightning and
crushed by a falling airplane during an earthquake than encountering a
hash collision in your repository.
--
Best regards,
Vladimir mailto:vladi...@thecybershadow.net
