Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com>:
> Honestly, I do think you have missed some fundamental issues.
> https://public-inbox.org/git/ab3222ab-9121-9534-1472-fac790bf0...@gmail.com/
> discusses this further.
Have re-read. That was a different pair of proposals.
I have abandoned the idea of forcing timestamp uniqueness entirely - that was
a hack to define a canonical commit order, and my new RFC describes a better
way to get this.
I still think finer-grained timestamps would be a good idea, but that is
much less important than the different set of properties we can guarantee
via the new RFC.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
