Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: [RFC] versioned policy -- introduction

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 12:36:56AM -0500, Timothy Brownawell wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-09-07 at 22:18 -0700, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> > > Also, is this one trust seed per database?  So does this force one
> > > database per project (quite probably a good way to do things, but not
> > > the way everyone works currently)?
> > 
> > Maybe!  Or maybe not; nothing is set in stone yet.  But a 1-1
> > database<->trust seed relationship is tempting.  For pretty much any
> > operation, we need to know what trust seed to use, up-front -- this is
> > dramatically simplified if there is only ever one trust seed to choose
> > from.  And one database per project already seems to be the best
> > practice anyway; I don't generally feel guilty about encouraging
> > people to use best practices.
> 
> I'd think that that would make things like using merge_into_dir across
> projects (like if upstream for botan or lua or sqlite was in mtn) a bit
> of a pain.

Hmm, I think in that case, you also have the additional requirement
that everyone working on, say, monotone, should also be able to see
the botan history that has been merged in?

So perhaps in that case you would want to put a botan trust seed into
the monotone trust tree ("to make decisions about branches like
net.randombit.botan*, go look over here instead: <...>"), all very
SPKI-like.

Not that this will make it into the first iteration :-).

-- Nathaniel

-- 
In mathematics, it's not enough to read the words
you have to hear the music