From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Noel Maddy Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:21:17 -0400 Message-ID: <20050429202117.GA15417@uglybox.localnet> References: <20050429194753.GA14222@uglybox.localnet> <200504291954.MAA27561@emf.net> Reply-To: Noel Maddy Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: noel@zhtwn.com, seanlkml@sympatico.ca, git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 29 22:20:01 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DRbxH-0006Oa-QI for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 22:19:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262960AbVD2UYQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:24:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262942AbVD2UWR (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:22:17 -0400 Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56]:26573 "EHLO sccrmhc12.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262944AbVD2UVV (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:21:21 -0400 Received: from uglybox (pcp04038668pcs.wbrmfd01.mi.comcast.net[68.43.211.146]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with ESMTP id <2005042920211801200d9v0je>; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:21:19 +0000 Received: from noel by uglybox with local (Exim 4.50) id 1DRbzB-00046a-8M; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:21:17 -0400 To: Tom Lord Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200504291954.MAA27561@emf.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 12:54:19PM -0700, Tom Lord wrote: > > > > Call me a naive git, but seems to me the "git way" is a little > > different. It's tree-based rather than diff-based, and doesn't involve > > passing diffs around, right? > > Isn't that a significant part of what I said? Go back and read more > carefully, is my suggestion. I'm trying to understand you. Please bear with me, and point out what I'm missing. Your example had Joe reviewing a signed diff, and then applying changes from a tree that "supposedly" had the diff applied correctly, but may have been corrupted. If the tree was not an accurate representation of applying the diff, then the changes Joe applied to his tree will be different than those that he reviewed. My example had Joe downloading a remote signed tree, reviewing the changes locally between his own trusted tree and the remote tree, and then applying them locally. Since the diffs are generated locally between the two trees, Joe is always reviewing the exact changes that will be applied to his tree. Doesn't this deal with the logical hole that you were pointing out in your example? Or am I seeing a different "logical hole" than you are? -- A man who fears nothing is a man who loves nothing. And if you love nothing, what joy is there in your life? -- King Arthur, "First Knight" +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ Noel Maddy