RE: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark

["Andrew Timberlake-Newell" <Andrew.Timberlake-Newell@AllianceOneInc.com>]

>   > It looks to me like he did read carefully.
> 
>   > There were two different ideas:
>   >   TL)  Passing tree & diff and trusting diff to create tree
>   >   NM)  Passing tree and generating diff versus local tree for review
> 
> Well, I guess *you* didn't read carefully.  I also spoke about the
> value of passing around triples: ancestry, diff, and tree.  The
> question is about linking signatures to things that humans can
> reasonably *intend* and be reasonably held accountable for, hence one
> of the values of signed diffs.  (I cited other practical reasons to
> value signed diffs and use them in specific ways, too.)

I know that you mentioned other things.  That doesn't invalidate that Noel
was talking about your starting point description of how git works and
suggesting that it isn't how git actually works.  The relevance of your
other points depends upon having the base model correct.

You can argue that glass houses are inherently brittle, but why should I
care if mine is already made of bricks instead of glass?  If the model
against which you are arguing is not the model which is used by git, then
the model isn't a relevant basis for claiming problems with git.