monotone-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone


From: Julio M. Merino Vidal
Subject: Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Future of monotone
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 11:08:02 +0100

On Jan 29, 2008, at 5:45 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 08:51:03PM -0700, Derek Scherger wrote:
One reason for separating out the author from the signer is that, in the event of a database rebuild, all certs will be re-signed by whoever does
the rebuild and the original author is lost. This has happened a few
times in the monotone history and while not a huge problem does leave
rebuild a little more lossy than it could be.

My current feeling is that separating out signer from author is a bad
idea.  The cost of having them is paid all the time -- you have two
different identities to worry about every time you print a log
message, there are security concerns (people who are confused about
identity can cause a mess), etc.  The cost of not having them is this
annoyance with database rebuilds, which are *very* rare, and for them
ad hoc techniques suffice.  (For instance: just munge a note about the
original author into the commit message programmatically.)

Another situation where the signer/author diference is useful is when committing patches on behalf of other people. Git has this feature and I have found it useful under some situations.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]