4 ms·
If the order of changes does not matter and identifiers do not depend on previous changes, ist there still a way to uniquely identify a specific set of changes?
by vbrandl 6y ago
If the order of changes does not matter and identifiers do not depend on previous changes, ist there still a way to uniquely identify a specific set of changes? With git, I like to include the commit ref in release binaries which is great for debugging since I can just git checkout and see the exact form of the code running on the server. Is there something similar in pijul?
- dan-robertson 6y agoFrom reading the blog posts/source code, I can explain how it works. Here’s a simple way to give a set of changes (a state) an id: 1. Take the hashes of each change 2. XOR them together 3. This is your state ID. The problem is that because of the way you’ve made it (basically adding a bunch of vectors in a vector space over F2), one could use Gaussian elimination to construct any given ID without it being of the intended set of changes. Therefore pijul uses a process which works similarly but in a more cryptographically secure way which makes forging state IDs harder.
- gnufx 6y agoI assume it's the same as with Darcs, where you would record a tag patch. The darcs --exact-version option prints that for a released version of darcs.