Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:03:26 +0100 (CET)
From: Karel Gardas <kgardas@objectsecurity.com>
To: Jan Hudec <bulb@ucw.cz>
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: darcs vs tla
In-Reply-To: <20041116194422.GA9828@vagabond>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0411162100440.13313-100000@gardas.dyndns.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org, lode.leroy@advalvas.be,
        jeremy.shaw@linspireinc.com, Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>
Precedence: list
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: 1034
Lines: 29
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Jan Hudec wrote:

> > - darcs does not support patch signing/verification except simple
> >   email-based transport method (showstopper for me)
>
> 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.

Yes, true, sorry for not so precise definition. The most important thing
is that signing/verification is transport independend while this is not
the case in darcs. In addition darcs patches are not signed in repository
but on export (by send command), which is showstopper about which I wrote.

Cheers,
Karel
--
Karel Gardas                  kgardas@objectsecurity.com
ObjectSecurity Ltd.           http://www.objectsecurity.com


_______________________________________________
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/