From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,a326ac15995ef20e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit From: Brian May Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Debian build scripts on a public Monotone server References: <871wpzd7js.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <1159259938.13504.19.camel@localhost> <1159263129.848672.286190@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <1159267398.13504.35.camel@localhost> <1159433540.824912.193400@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1159574582.667087.127500@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <87r6xtmvc8.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net> <1159994544.336977.122140@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1160123074.798618.79370@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:34:46 +1000 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:MU3xUE6CvgpkPMGcrjSL6uWdYXo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au X-Trace: quokka.wn.com.au 1160292884 202.173.153.89 (8 Oct 2006 15:34:44 +0800) X-Complaints-To: abuse@westnet.com.au Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!quokka.wn.com.au!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6904 Date: 2006-10-08T17:34:46+10:00 List-Id: >>>>> "Ludovic" == Ludovic Brenta writes: Ludovic> OTOH, it would alter the SHA1 of the resulting revision Ludovic> and make it impossible for other people to obtain the Ludovic> exact same revision ID (which is precisely the SHA1) if Ludovic> they, too, merge automatically. Hmmm. Somewhere in the documentation I read something along similar lines (deleting a certificate is not possible unless there are no child revisions). However, this really confuses me. I thought a revision only had the SHA1 of the previous revision details. Each certificate contains the SHA1 of the revision, not the other way around. As such, surely it should be OK to add as many different certificates as you want without any of the certificates effecting any subsequent revisions. Or delete certificate too, although they may get copied back again. In which case, wouldn't both merge's still result in the same revision-id, but with two set of certificates? Or have I misunderstood something? -- Brian May