From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 21:44:16 GMT Subject: Re: kernel.org now has gitweb installed Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7v1x8u7g26.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > 1. Currently, commit-tree does not seem to verify that all its > parent SHA1's actually name valid commit objects. Is this > intentional? No. Me lazy. I think we should check as many _cheap_ things as possible, and checking whether a parent at least superficially looks like a real commit object is certainly cheap. > 2. Assuming that we do want to enforce that parent fields of a > commit object name valid commit objects, is it OK to also > require that the commit timestamp of a child object is not in > the future relative to any and all of its parent commit > objects (I'm talking about the timestamp of committer field > not author field, although your e-mail patch acceptance > procedure seems to be giving it the same timestamp right > now)? No, this is not ok. Clock skew is real, and somebody may have a misconfigured machine. Being careful about integrity is good, but trying to enforce time flow in a distributed environment is just being anal. Maybe a warning. Linus