Re: [Monotone-devel] netsync flag day justifies bumping version number to 1.0

[Zack Weinberg]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Markus Wanner<address@hidden> wrote:
>> A voucher cert places a new-form signature on a
>> particular set of old-form certs for a revision.  The data I think we
>> need to sign is
>>
>>   revision_id || ( cert_hash || old_keypair_id || new_keypair_hash )*
>
> All of this reminds me of the atomic cert (or super cert) thingie.
> Wouldn't that be the absolute perfect combination for a common flag day?
> Well, despite the fact that we don't have atomic certs implemented... :-(

You mean the date+author+changelog thing?  That doesn't require a flag
day ... we just switch version 0.whatever to start generating them,
and document that old clients will not give useful log output for revs
created with the new clients.  Netsync doesn't care.  (If we wanted to
merge in the branch cert that would be different, but I don't think we
should do that.  So.)

I don't think that change ought to be tied with this one, really.

zw