Re: [Monotone-devel] partial pull #2 - gaps instead of a single horizon

[Timothy Brownawell]

On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 13:06 -0500, Timothy Brownawell wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 18:59 +0200, Markus Schiltknecht wrote:

> > Well, at least he would still have to break the hash. So that's not such 
> > a big concern, IMO.
> 
> Why would they have to do that? A revision contains (1) the hashes of
> parent revisions, and (2) names/hashes of modified files. If we don't
> actually have the parent revisions, we have to take (1) on faith, and
> suddenly don't know anything about the contents (or even presence) of
> files not included in (2).

err... it seems to have slipped my mind that revisions also contain the
manifest id, so this is totally incorrect.

So all we have to worry about is whether the history graph is
well-formed (because that graph is based entirely on (1), which we don't
know), and the worst problem we can have is that your database becomes
broken and unusable.


-- 
Timothy

Free (experimental) public monotone hosting: http://mtn-host.prjek.net