Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark

[Denys Duchier <duchier@ps.uni-sb.de>]

Tom Lord <lord@emf.net> writes:

>   > My example had Joe downloading a remote signed tree, reviewing the changes
>   > locally between his own trusted tree and the remote tree, 
>
> In the real world, that "review" step is the weak link.  When it goes
> wrong, the first step is to make sure we are reviewing a tree everyone
> involved *intended* -- and it's only with signed diffs adding up to
> that tree that we get there.

Hi Tom,

I hope I am not speaking out of turn or misinterpreting issues beyond my grasp,
but my perception of git is that when you sign a commit, you guarantee that this
is indeed the next step in the chronology of your own branch.  It's not about
diffs; it's about a singular brachial chronology - of course, additional
information may be recorded about topological antecedents, but that's not what
the signature is about.  The diff from that chronology can easily be generated
and scrutinized by anyone, and imported or not into another branch.

Cheers,

-- 
Dr. Denys Duchier - IRI & LIFL - CNRS, Lille, France
AIM: duchierdenys