From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Andrew Timberlake-Newell" Subject: RE: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:57:15 -0400 Message-ID: <001401c54cfe$061375f0$9b11a8c0@allianceoneinc.com> References: <200504292026.NAA28131@emf.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: , , X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 29 23:43:23 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DRdG0-0007UN-Ox for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 23:42:45 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262987AbVD2U7y (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:59:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262981AbVD2U7U (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:59:20 -0400 Received: from mail.allianceoneinc.com ([65.213.221.36]:7689 "EHLO mail.allianceoneinc.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262978AbVD2U6H (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:58:07 -0400 Received: from epa20012 [192.168.17.155] by mail.allianceoneinc.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.14) id AFAA2AD600B2; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:57:14 -0400 To: "'Tom Lord'" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 In-Reply-To: <200504292026.NAA28131@emf.net> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-IMAIL-SPAM-VALFROM: (9faa2ad600b2e541) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > > 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.