Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark

From: Noel Maddy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 16:21:17 -0400

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 <[email-masked]>