Christian Ohler wrote:
> Ok. Still, verifying signatures on 10MB worth of data is very likely
> faster than verifying them on 71MB worth of data.
Not really: that very 10MB contains all the data that is RSA-signed...
the files themselves are "only" hashed in order to get a smaller value
to be act
Derek Scherger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> The ui/command-set in git seems complicated and somewhat strange though.
> For example the fact that pull does fetch+merge seems a bit odd coming
> from monotone. It almost seems like "fetch" should have been called
> "pull" and "merge" could hav
Graydon Hoare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Moschny wrote:
>
>> Having combined certs would solve that problem at the cost of
>> sometimes storing the same information twice: e.g. when two people
>> do the same merge, there will be two certs with different
>> dates/authors, but identical br
Lapo Luchini, 2007-05-26:
Space is not the scarce resource here (well, not the most important one,
at least, IMHO): time is.
Pull time is not only a question of size, it's also (mainly?) a question
of the time taken by the multiple hash and signature verifications.
Ok. Still, verifying signat
Christian Ohler wrote:
> Perhaps this would be good enough?
Space is not the scarce resource here (well, not the most important one,
at least, IMHO): time is.
Pull time is not only a question of size, it's also (mainly?) a question
of the time taken by the multiple hash and signature verifications
Thomas Keller, 2007-05-25:
I'm not completly in this topic, so I might be perfectly wrong, but
wouldn't it be possible to just fetch the revision_id graph and leave
out revision texts, roster and file data for gap/unfetched revisions,
just mark them in a special way?
Or how about simply tran
