Nathaniel Smith wrote:
The tricky bit is that at netsync time, we check to make sure that our
mapping is consistent with our peers mapping;
I do not think we need to do this with branches. When a user initiates
netsync we get a pattern describing the branches to sync. We can expand
the
Naming is always interesting, and the source of many arguments :)
With respect to key naming, I agree entirely that the internal
representation of a key id should be based on a hash of the key
material. Ascribing a name to a key should be done with certificates
- signed attestations by other trus
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 03:34:00PM +0100, Zbynek Winkler wrote:
> Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
> >Branch and key names are similar,
> >
> I think you are unnecessarily complicating matter by putting branches
> and keys together. They are somewhat similar but the differences IMHO
> prevail. Branches
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 11:57:16AM -0500, Ethan Blanton wrote:
> Nathaniel Smith spake unto us the following wisdom:
> > This is also somewhat problematic (though this hasn't come up as
> > much yet, though it probably will as monotone usage grows),
> > because it means that if the,
Nathaniel Smith spake unto us the following wisdom:
> This is also somewhat problematic (though this hasn't come up as
> much yet, though it probably will as monotone usage grows),
> because it means that if the, say, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" key goes bad,
> like it gets compromised
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 11:14:21AM +0100, Zbynek Winkler wrote:
When everything has hash-based unique id why should branches be any
different? Every database would maintain mapping between the unique ids
and some human readable form (which could be anything - globaly
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 11:14:21AM +0100, Zbynek Winkler wrote:
> When everything has hash-based unique id why should branches be any
> different? Every database would maintain mapping between the unique ids
> and some human readable form (which could be anything - globaly unique
> or not). That
Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:14:21 +0100, Zbynek Winkler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
zwin> When everything has hash-based unique id why should branches be any
zwin> different? Every database would maintain mapping between the unique
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:14:21 +0100, Zbynek
Winkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
zwin> When everything has hash-based unique id why should branches be any
zwin> different? Every database would maintain mapping between the unique ids
zwin> and some human readable form
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
The branch naming conventions debate came up on IRC again today:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/monotone?date=2005-10-29,Sat&sel=19#l140
So I made up a page for people to look at some options and gather some
opinions...:
http://venge.net/monotone/wiki/Branch
The branch naming conventions debate came up on IRC again today:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/monotone?date=2005-10-29,Sat&sel=19#l140
So I made up a page for people to look at some options and gather some
opinions...:
http://venge.net/monotone/wiki/BranchNamingConventions
-- Na
11 matches
Mail list logo
