From: Horst von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:45:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark
Message-ID: <200504292145.j3TLjoTC014157@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl>
In-Reply-To: <lord@emf.net>

Tom Lord <lord@emf.net> said:
> Think of it this way:
> 
>   (a) Joe, the mainline maintainer, gets a trusted message containing
>       a diff.
> 
>   (b) Joe reads the diff, it makes great sense, he wants to merge.
> 
>   (c) Joe downloads a tree.  Supposedly that tree is the result of
>       applying this diff.   The tree, not the diff, is used for
>       merging.
> 
> You can see the logical whole there... now the practical one:
> 
> 
>    (d) Joe is repeating (a..c) at an unfathomably high rate.
>        At a low rate, he could be double-checking enough that
>        that the diff-vs-tree problem isn't that serious.  But
>        at the rate he operates, exploits appear all along the
>        patch-flow pipeline because so much stuff goes unchecked.
> 
>        Joe may be scan the changes he's merged before committing but,
>        if his rate is high, that scan *must*, out of biological and
>        physical necessity, be shallow.   Exploits can occur on the
>        submitter machine, in the communication channel, and on Joe's 
>        machine.   Social exploits can occur because of the separation
>        between a submitter saying "this is what I'm doing" vs. the reality
>        of what the submitter is doing.

Now pray tell how Joe signing one, two, three, or none of the things he is
juggling makes any difference here.
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513