On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Tom Lord wrote: > > 1) the ancestry of their modified tree > > 2) the complete contents of their modified tree > > 3) input data for a patching program (let's call it "PATCH") > which, at the very least, satisfies the equation: > > MOD_TREE = PATCH (this_diff, ORIG_TREE) > > On the other hand, signing documents which represent a {(1),(3)} pair > with robust accuracy is, in most cases, much much less expensive than > signing {(1),(2)} pairs with robust accuracy. Not so. It may be less expensive in your world, but that's the whole point of git: it's _not_ less expensive in the git world. In the git world, 1 and 2 aren't even separate things. They go together. And you just sign it. End of story. It's so cheap to sign that it's not even funny. More importantly, signing 3 is meaningless. 3 only makes sense with a known starting point. You should never sign a patch without also saying what you're patching. And once you do that, 1+2 and 1+3 are _exactly_ the same thing. And since git always works on the 1+2 level, it would be inexcusably stupid to sign anything but that. 3 doesn't even exist per se, although it's obviously fully defined by 1+2. So I don't see your point. You complain about git signing, but you complain on grounds that do not _exist_ in git, and then your alternative (1+3) which is senseless in a git world doesn't actually end up being anything really different - just more expensive. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Sat Apr 30 03:55:03 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-04-30 03:55:03 EST