On 3/21/24 17:08, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
Hello pinoaffe,
pinoaffe <pinoa...@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
I think we, as Guix,
- should examine if/how it is currently feasible to rewrite our git
history,
it's not, see also:
https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/securing-updates/
- should examine possible workarounds going forward,
- should move towards something like UUIDs and petnames in the long run.
(see https://spritelyproject.org/news/petname-systems.html).
I don't understand how using petnames, uuids or even a re:claimID
identity (see below) could solve the problem with "rewriting history" in
case a person wishes to change his or her previous _published_ name
(petname, uuid...) in an archived content-addressable storage system.
It doesnt solve the problem of rewriting history. It solves the bug of
having names part of the git history.
see also https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/20960 for Gitlab
doing the same thing.
MSavoritias
As a side note, other than the "petname system" please also consider
re:claimID from GNUnet:
https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/index.html
https://www.gnunet.org/en/reclaim/motivation.html
[...]
Regards, Giovanni.
[1] https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/securing-updates/
