D Programming Language source (dmd, phobos,etc.) has moved to github

[Vladimir Panteleev]

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 00:28:22 +0200, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:

> That's the same exact concept, isn't it? My understanding is that a  
> clone of
> a DVCS repository *is* a distinct DVCS repository. So, yea, like I said,  
> you
> have to specify "which repository". The "common dev" repository. The  
> "main
> stable repository". The "only shared repository this small project  
> actually
> has". Or "Bob's repository" for what little that would be worth.

OK, I see your point. However, I would avoid using such a way to refer to  
commits, where mistaking one half of it may still point towards a commit,  
however a completely unrelated one.

> But it's extremely rare not to have at least one *common* repository that
> everyone pushes/pulls to.

Um, why do you think people wrote DVCS systems? They could have just  
souped up SVN with local commits and proper merging etc. (I heard SVN was  
going to do that anyway.)

> I don't understand why you think I'm claiming anything of the sort.

I was under the impression you thought commit numbers somehow magically  
propagated themselves throughout all clones of the repository ("distinct  
repository was ambiguous"), since I saw no point in referring to a  
revision number that's only valid for the copy on your hard drive. I  
didn't think you implied the scenario of making your repository remotely  
accessible.

> There are plenty of things about *any* DVCS that are going to confuse  
> people
> who try to treat it like SVN. If that was a valid reason not to do  
> something
> a certain way, then Hg/Git/etc would all have to *be* SVN.

An analogy to this mis-feature would be D compiling valid C code in a  
subtly different manner than C. D explicitly avoids this, with good reason.

>> Also, saying that SHA-1 hash collisions are "very  rare" is a bit of an
>> understatement.
>>
>
> Point is, it's possible and it's going to happen at least to someone, and
> frankly, such things *have* happened. Winning the lottery and getting  
> hit by
> lighting are *extremely* rare, and yet there are a *lot* of people who  
> have
> had it happen. The problem is they're taking "rare" (doesn't matter what
> superlative is used) and pretending it's the same as "impossible".  
> Airplane
> crashes and major earthquakes are extremely rare, but they sure as hell  
> plan
> for what happens should such an event occur.

I think you're more likely to simultaneously get hit by a lightning and  
crushed by a falling airplane during an earthquake than encountering a  
hash collision in your repository.

-- 
Best regards,
  Vladimir                            mailto:vladimir at thecybershadow.net