Re: Which VCS besides git?

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> That's not exactly correct. Monotone works very differently; a
>> revision doesn't include the ancestry, that's handled in a separate
>> structure, so the revision hash doesn't tell you anything about the
>> ancestry.
>
> Not so.  Long ago that was the case (ancestry was via certs), but that's
> not been the case for a long time.  There are (in retrospect) obvious
> advantages in including the ancestry in the hash.

>> In fact, a revision doesn't contain anything, the data is handled by
>> "certs", and certs can be added later.
>
> Revisions lack date, author, branch, commit message, but include
> ancestry and the actual changes (which files/directories have changed
> and how).
>
>> For example, it's possible to clone a repository and then add a second
>> commit message to a bunch of revisions. The revision hash doesn't
>> change. Instead, they ensure security by signing every piece of data
>> about a commit (commit date, author, commit message). So it's possible
>> to have multiple commit dates, authors, messages, etc. each signed by
>> a different person.
>>
>> I'm not really fond of this approach :P
>
> It has the nice feature that many people can create merges, and if they
> create exactly the same merge (from exactly the same parents) then only
> one revision results (just with multiple certs decorating it).