3 ms·
Couldn't we use, you know, git for the many applications that require a verifiable history of commits but don't need to be super fast or real-time?
by cs702 6y ago
Couldn't we use, you know, git for the many applications that require a verifiable history of commits but don't need to be super fast or real-time?
- dang 6y ago"Don't be snarky." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html You may have a good point, but for it to be a good comment you would need to drop the snark and engage more specifically with the details of the article. The odds, for example, that the authors don't know about or have thought about git are basically zero.
- cs702 6y agodang: I did not mean for my comment to be snarky! I also did not mean it to be dismissive! I meant it as an honest, obvious question one should ask. But in hindsight, in the light of morning, my comment sure looks snarky, you're right. I wrote it quickly last night. Argh. Sorry. And thank you for taking the time to point it out. philips: please accept my apologies too. The last thing I want to be is snarky.
- dang 6y agoIt happens! Objects in the mirror are closer than they appear, etc. :) Thanks for the kind reply!
- justincormack 6y agoGit has an issue that branch heads are mutable, and unsigned, so two repos can disagree about what is head with the same commits in them. Using a transparency log to record changes in heads is like forcing no fast forwards and signing each change in heads.
- cs702 6y agoThanks for the clear explanation. That makes sense.