Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark

Tom Lord [off-list ref] said:

Think of it this way:

  (a) Joe, the mainline maintainer, gets a trusted message containing
      a diff.

  (b) Joe reads the diff, it makes great sense, he wants to merge.

  (c) Joe downloads a tree.  Supposedly that tree is the result of
      applying this diff.   The tree, not the diff, is used for
      merging.

You can see the logical whole there... now the practical one:


   (d) Joe is repeating (a..c) at an unfathomably high rate.
       At a low rate, he could be double-checking enough that
       that the diff-vs-tree problem isn't that serious.  But
       at the rate he operates, exploits appear all along the
       patch-flow pipeline because so much stuff goes unchecked.

       Joe may be scan the changes he's merged before committing but,
       if his rate is high, that scan *must*, out of biological and
       physical necessity, be shallow.   Exploits can occur on the
       submitter machine, in the communication channel, and on Joe's 
       machine.   Social exploits can occur because of the separation
       between a submitter saying "this is what I'm doing" vs. the reality
       of what the submitter is doing.

Now pray tell how Joe signing one, two, three, or none of the things he is
juggling makes any difference here.
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                     Fono: +56 32 654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria              +56 32 654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile                Fax:  +56 32 797513