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

[Thomas Moschny]

Markus Schiltknecht wrote:
> 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?

Because currently, the 'date' field is only loosely coupled to 
the 'author', 'branch' and 'changelog' certs. If there are multiple commits 
(e.g. in case of a clean merge), you can only guess by looking at the signers 
what certs belong together. 

> > 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.

It might be worth adding a short note to a tag, for example, but I am not 
strongly after this message field.

> > 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.

That could be avoided by additionally combining 'changelog' and 'branch' certs 
into one cert.

> 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.

That's imho a different topic, and I'm not sure I already understood what you 
mean by 'locality' here.

- Thomas

-- 
Thomas Moschny  <address@hidden>

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.