Re: On raw strings in <origin> commit field

[Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>]

Hi simon,

> Please re-read all your answers and mines.  I hope you will see where
> you were incorrect.
I don't think there's anything to see here.  Believe it or not, but
you've so far been boiling my water multiple times only to then throw
it into my face as I attempt to put the rice in.  Admittedly, that's a
little frustrating.  However, I am a big girl and I can handle getting
hot and wet.

> [F]or what my opinion is worth on that matter, my probably wrong
> understanding of your words is that perhaps you are missing a point
> about content-addressability.

Am Dienstag, dem 04.01.2022 um 14:15 +0100 schrieb zimoun:
> Let pick one commit in the Git history, for instance:
> e598e46913c661bc92df813d537eeb6be5a86471.  [...]
> 
> Explain me.  « Git commit hash only depends on the content itself,
> i.e., Git commit object », as I wrote.
That's exactly the point.  For the entirety of this discussion, I've
been assuming the content (i.e. "the content content" or "the content
without meta-content" or however else you want to term it) to be "that
which is hashed by Guix", which if using git-fetch is the working
directory (using Git parlance correctly here, hopefully, correct me if
not) sans the Git subdirectory.  I am sure you have at least a rough
understanding of how that ought to work yourself, but for a more in-
depth analysis of what goes into that, see Timothy's message
> Note for all of this that my scripts treat the SHA256 hash as *the*
> identifier for a source.  That is, if a tag is mutated and a someone
> adjusts the origin URI to point to the commit that the tag used to
> refer to, I would not notice.  Similarly, for tricking peer review:
> fixing the URI to match the hash is invisible to me.  It’s only when we
> fix the hash to match the URI that I notice.
from 87ee5pspza.fsf@ngyro.com

> Instead of taking a superior tone «(you can figure out yourself
> where)», I would prefer that you correctly read the messages I
> wrote.  Maybe, that’s why my previous email is probably is bit harsh,
> sorry.
I apologize, I had not intended that to be a superior tone.  I wanted
this to be a less authoritarian version of « you have to figure out
yourself where », leaving open some room for you to not bother any
longer, but my attempt failed.

For the sake of transparency, you are (in my opinion at least) making a
leap here in that you think I somehow care about the hash of a commit
message, which in fact I couldn't care less about other than the
obvious fact that it changes with it.  I can't pinpoint where exactly
along these lines you might have mistakenly got that impression or I
might mistakenly have conveyed it, but you appear to have a rather
convincing reason for you to do so.  Therefore, before going off on yet
another tangent I wanted you to make sure whether that is in fact the
case.


In short, not all content addressing schemes are equal and the content
by which Git addresses its commits is completely irrelevant to Guix (by
virtue of it deleting its means to do so anyway).  I hope that cleared
up any misconceptions.  If not, feel free to ask.

Cheers