On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 09:18 -0800, Russ Cox wrote: > Onr fundamental difference is that the latter set is > intended to keep trees exactly in sync,
"trees" tend to be highly overloaded, but if you refer to the filesystem hierarchy as seem by open, then the above statement, if applied to Git, is misleading. Git specifically opted out for some additional complexity in favor of treating the non-mutable hash addressed history and write buffer differently. Not realizing that git makes this distinction, makes people surprised when they try to push their own history into the repositories of others only to find out that the tree they see locally doesn't match the tree that is on the other end. This rigid distinction was one of the factors that swayed us in favor of Git when we did internal evaluation of DSCMs about a yer ago. It really makes things much more manageable. > The replica tools are not SHA1-based because they > cannot depend on the user having a venti to manage > the blocks, and managing a separate copy of the data > (like the dvcs's do) seemed out of character with > fitting well into the surrounding system. That is well understood and replica definitely has its place in Plan9. That said, what would be your thoughts on developing the tools (and interfaces perhaps) for fetching up venti blocks between two systems in a secure and manageable way. It seems that as a *complimentary* solution this would achieve quite a few benefits of Git/etc. Thanks, Roman.
