[Top][All Lists]

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

DVCS design philosophy

From: Eric S. Raymond
Subject: DVCS design philosophy
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 11:33:04 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>:
> > The tension here is fundamental.  You can have easy typo fixes, or you
> > can have a record that is both reliable and snared, but not both.
> > I think the latter is more important than the former.
> I think you've just been brain-washed by the Bzr/Git/Hg crowd.
> There's no reason why the commit message would need to be considered as
> being part of the "immutable history".  IOW there's no technical reason
> to include the commit message in the Git hash.
> [ For that same reason, I think a DVCS like Git should not include the
>   parents in the computation of the hash either, so you can later on
>   change the history graph (which might not be a DAG any more).  ]

You raise an interesting two points.

I will amend my statement.  *If* you think the expression of programmer's
intent should e part of a reliable shared record, *then* you can't have
easy typo fixes. 

I sometimes regret this, as I am quite prone to typos.  But I don't think
the Bzr/Git/Hg choice to make programmer's intent part of that record
is unreasonable, either.  One property it does guarantee is non-repudiability.  
                <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>

reply via email to

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