From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39C21F462 for ; Thu, 23 May 2019 21:19:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388217AbfEWVTS (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 May 2019 17:19:18 -0400 Received: from thyrsus.com ([71.162.243.5]:56324 "EHLO snark.thyrsus.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387914AbfEWVTR (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 May 2019 17:19:17 -0400 Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 81BFD4704887; Thu, 23 May 2019 17:19:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 17:19:16 -0400 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: Jakub Narebski , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: RFC: Separate commit identification from Merkle hashing Message-ID: <20190523211916.GA73150@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com References: <20190521013250.3506B470485F@snark.thyrsus.com> <86h89lq96v.fsf@gmail.com> <20190523205009.GA69096@thyrsus.com> <20190523205457.GC70860@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190523205457.GC70860@google.com> Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Nieder : > Honestly, I do think you have missed some fundamental issues. > https://public-inbox.org/git/ab3222ab-9121-9534-1472-fac790bf08a4@gmail.com/ > discusses this further. Have re-read. That was a different pair of proposals. I have abandoned the idea of forcing timestamp uniqueness entirely - that was a hack to define a canonical commit order, and my new RFC describes a better way to get this. I still think finer-grained timestamps would be a good idea, but that is much less important than the different set of properties we can guarantee via the new RFC. -- Eric S. Raymond