Monotone

[fare]

You may remember that I am looking for a solution to the SNAIL problem, which will have to be based on epistemic monotonic logic. Well, monotone offers half of the solution, monotonic logic. And that is also the more useful half to me, considering that the instantaneous latency of my SNAIL networks is actually low: when my computers are connected

Comments

wow

[dlakelan]

Hi Fare

Re: wow

[fare]

(1) monotone would probably be not essentially worse for image editing than any other versioning system. Unless your software allows to keep your modifications in a vector (logical) format, you'll have to deal with lots of ugly raster (bitmap) files if you do heavy editing

Re: wow

[fare]

Oops. Actually, if it's clever, which I suppose it is, considering the speed of commits on my antique PDA, it will only compute checksums for touched files. So the slightly suboptimal space will be the only problem with managing blobs, not the time to compute hashes. Silly me. Long live user-settable filesystem modified time tags!

Re: wow

[dlakelan]

Actually, monotone does hash everything be default, because this is safer than doing anything else[0], and as you've discovered, this is actually not a speed issue these days, except in extreme situations.

You can trade off a tiny bit of safety for extra speed by telling it to trust filesystem mod times:
http://www.venge.net/monotone/docs/Inodeprints.html

-- Nathaniel

[0] Assuming you believe in hashes at all, but if you don't, then you have worse problems with monotone.

Re: wow

[dlakelan]

1) Right. Although if you had a collection of images (or anything else) that you wanted to version *together*, it would be good.

2) This has been done. Of course, merging tends to only work on text.

3) Atomic. It versions file trees (which contain files), rather than individual files directly.

4) Fairly well, although it doesn't yet handle rename conflicts when merging.

Tim