[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla
From: |
Juliusz Chroboczek |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla |
Date: |
17 Nov 2004 17:32:08 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 |
> Arch does not support signing/verification for transport -- it supports
> it for STORAGE. That's the key point. The signatures are stored and can
> be validated at any point in future. Eg. after a security accident.
Very true. And that's a major problem with darcs.
Unfortunately, there's no easy way to solve that. The representation
that darcs uses for any given patch may very over time: when you push
from one repository to another, the representation for the patch may
change (that's what ``commuting'' is about). While there is a
canonical form for a patch, it's not at all easy to compute.
Juliusz
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla, Alexey N. Solofnenko, 2004/11/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla, John A Meinel, 2004/11/17
- Message not available
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla, John A Meinel, 2004/11/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla, Alexey N. Solofnenko, 2004/11/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla, Andrew Suffield, 2004/11/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla, Thomas Lord, 2004/11/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla, John A Meinel, 2004/11/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla,
Juliusz Chroboczek <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla, John A Meinel, 2004/11/17
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla, Mark Stosberg, 2004/11/15
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla, John A Meinel, 2004/11/17