Hi Bert, Thanks for the interesting response.
*** >[V3dot10] Re: RV: Do in a workspace and say if could build > > >Bert Freudenberg bert at freudenbergs.de >Thu Jun 21 00:11:25 UTC 2007 > >On Jun 21, 2007, at 1:51 , Jerome Peace wrote: > >> First a better way to print out a uuid. Since its >> based on time I should be able to take an encoded UUID >> and print it out asHumanIntelligableText. > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UUID > >> Secondly it would seem that a time based version >> number would be a little less dangerous than a >> sequential version. So a package would be name >> somethink like: >> PackageName-subPackage-initials.yymmddnn.mcz >> with yymmddnn is a number based on time with a >> sufficient resolution to solve most problems. >> The details may be modified to meet other design >> criteria (e.g. spaceCompression). >> >> The first should be easy to do. > >Reversing a cryptographic hash function? Have fun. Hmm. I don't have to reverse a hash function I just have to "know what it means". That can be done by extra info saved with the hash as part of the name. Enough info to provide a human intellegible clue. UUID hashes mean that on such and such a day at such and such a time from such and such a place a something was saved and given a uuid in such and such a format. If the purpose of the saving is not to keep secret what was saved you can place both the open text and the hash together and if needs be keep a dictionary to reverse the cyptographic hash. Partial progress counts. I just want to look as something that doesn't mystify me. Remember the context is to make something a beginner and an amatuer can learn. >> I wonder what it would take to train MC to work with the second. > >That's trivial. Since MC does not place meaning on the version name >you can just pre-populate the version name input field of the version >save dialog with whatever suits you. Huh? Wow. Does this mean I could rename the file and MC would still recognize it for what it is? Oh,. you said version name. So you mean that the packagename portion is still significant but I can play around with the version names and MC will pay no attention. So a mischief maker could rename things so that Package-puck.30.mcz was the ancestor of Package-puck.29.mcz instead of the expected other way around? On the other hand Package-puck.3.mcz duplicated and renamed to egakcaP-puck.3.mcz would not be recognized by MC as the same? > >Actually, maybe having readable version file names is a problem in >itself. It gives the illusion that these have any meaning to MC. >Other systems like git avoid the problem by just using UUIDs as >filenames. And how would you know when mischief had happened then? Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace ____________________________________________________________________________________ Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 _______________________________________________ V3dot10 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/v3dot10
