On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:15 AM, Ian Wild <ian.wild_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> That sounds like a good translation to me. The maths gets complicated to put
> it mildly, but I know Dr Yeturu's work is in some part at least based on
> Paxos ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_algorithm ). AIUI we've got the
> only implementation of this model that can guarantee the consistency and
> ordering of transactions; important when you need your repositories to
> remain identical on every site!
*NOTHING* can guarantee this.. This is key to the difficulty of the
"merge" process for multiple branches against a common trunk.
Maintaining two sets of changes on distinct repositories that wind up
altering the same set of text, or code, in divergent ways cannot be
guaranteed to be resolved "correctly" by a mechanical process, because
the process would have to "understand" the discrepancies and resolve
them. It can be as simple as a copyright notice, whose changes
represent social information outside the scope of the source control
system, or code changes in a subroutine in one branch and the handling
of the error codes generated by that subroutine in a distinct branch.
It may do a much better *job* of this than other tools. That would be
cool, tricky merges have always been an issue. But mere ordering and
consistency is not sufficient, overlapping merges require attention.
Received on 2011-04-21 13:58:59 CEST