Message-ID: <419B8483.6040604@arbash-meinel.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:04:03 -0600
From: John A Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.jussieu.fr>
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla
References: <A477F15E-3732-11D9-B41D-000393CFE6B8@spy.net>	<Pine.LNX.4.43.0411151924040.746-100000@thinkpad.gardas.net>	<20041116194422.GA9828@vagabond>
	<tplld0xwqf.fsf@helium.pps.jussieu.fr>
In-Reply-To: <tplld0xwqf.fsf@helium.pps.jussieu.fr>
Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org, Jan Hudec <bulb@ucw.cz>
Precedence: list
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1218636086=="
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2361
Lines: 70
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--===============1218636086==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="------------enig713A64C3BD7C6D7E50BA0EC7"

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig713A64C3BD7C6D7E50BA0EC7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>>Arch does not support signing/verification for transport -- it supports
>>it for STORAGE. That's the key point. The signatures are stored and can
>>be validated at any point in future. Eg. after a security accident.
> 
> 
> Very true.  And that's a major problem with darcs.
> 
> Unfortunately, there's no easy way to solve that.  The representation
> that darcs uses for any given patch may very over time: when you push
> from one repository to another, the representation for the patch may
> change (that's what ``commuting'' is about).  While there is a
> canonical form for a patch, it's not at all easy to compute.
> 
>                                         Juliusz
> 

So it is an intrinsic problem. The only thing I can think of is that you 
could re-sign the patch after you've modified it, but that might get 
really expensive as well. Especially if patches get moved around after 
they've been applied. If it was just a reshuffle for a new patch, it 
might be okay.

John
=:->

--------------enig713A64C3BD7C6D7E50BA0EC7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBm4SDJdeBCYSNAAMRAiZbAJwNMTjPF2UCQMBo5j6tCjDua8WO3gCfaXYm
NpcvnA3Q1ROo5XTTTeLn0B8=
=GYSJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig713A64C3BD7C6D7E50BA0EC7--


--===============1218636086==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
--===============1218636086==--