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

[Markus Schiltknecht]

Hi,

Thomas Moschny wrote:
> Every cert should probably carry an 'author' and a 'date' field. Note that 
> author and signer can be different.

Uh.. why would you want to merge in a date field?

> Maybe one also wants to have a message' field, but I'm not sure what the use 
> case would be, and we surely don't want to continue that ad infinitum (msg 
> for the msg for the msg...).

I'd vote against such a message field, exactly for the "ad infinitum" 
reason.

> This would leave us with currently four pre-defined cert types: 'commit' 
> resp. 'commit-message', 'branch', 'tag' and 'suspend'.

Hm.. having the date information merged into these certs would lead to 
duplicates for normal commits.

Instead of trying to merge those certs together, I'd rather try to 
increase locality of those certs in the database as well as during 
netsync. That way, all certs would benefit, instead of only those which 
might possibly be used together.

Just my 2c.  Other thoughts?

Markus