On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 10:01:12PM -0600, Derek Scherger wrote: > The one thing that git has that we didn't was the commit object. Early > monotone's ancestor certs were certainly not the right solution and the > ,git commit object seems like a reasonably nice representation > conceptually at least. I haven't looked into the details though.
The commit object is basically the same as our revision. (It's different in detail, of course, but it's playing the same linchpin role of enabling the chained hashing trick.) Git was started after we had revisions (and chained hashing), but before we had rosters (and rename semantics that actually made sense.) Historically, monotone went: manifests + rename heuristics -> revisions + rename heuristics -> revisions + rosters -- Nathaniel -- "But suppose I am not willing to claim that. For in fact pianos are heavy, and very few persons can carry a piano all by themselves." _______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
