On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Kent Tenney <[email protected]> wrote:
> there might be ongoing rewards from learning to use git. It's possible. However, I'm more interested in using the underlying technology. It may be that real value is in hashlib--specifically, the Aha that content can be quickly and safely tagged. Suddenly, everything looks ripe for hashing. BTW, the hash of, say, a Leo node, is at the opposite end of the spectrum from Leo's gnx's. A gnx represents unchanging identity; a hash represents a specific content. A strong hash guarantees that hash(a) == hash(b) if and ONLY if a == b. That's a really cool property. I'm just starting to confront the implications. For example, because nodes have gnx's, the hash property means that two nodes with different gnx's must have different hashes. The implications for versioning, file systems, histories, etc, are open ended. Furthermore, the notion that a repository is naturally a DAG is naturally quite intriguing in the Leo world... Several questions come to mind. Surely others will follow: 1. Can git-like hashing add a time dimension to Leo outlines, such that the outline could naturally contain its own history? 2. Can git-like hashing somehow allow Leo to treat some or all files as @shadow files. Does hashing have implications for the fundamental @shadow algorithm? 3. Could .leo files be git-like archives? 4. The hashcache scheme shows that hashlib is valuable by itself without git. Do we actually need git, or could be do better by stealing git ideas and using just the hashlib tool? Edward --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
