131700+ entries in 0.078s
trinque: can have a
tool
to edit it sure, but
then
that's
the file
that's being edited no matter what else is edited, and
there's a coherent history based primarily upon a list denoting what's considered a
thing at
time of patch
ben_vulpes: comedy option: vpatch names are now
the hash of
the resulting codebase
ben_vulpes: oh you said "patch # and
the codebase hash is..."
trinque: why not have one file, manifest, and you edit it,
then vdiff
the whole shebang.
☟︎ ben_vulpes: question
then becomes how
to get
the patchtitle into .manifest
ben_vulpes: mircea_popescu: okay, i geddit. do it as
the first step of vdiff, so
the mutation shows up
trinque: my cuntoo installer script requires some what, 500mb of wads of other items
that are not
text, or useless.
mircea_popescu envisaged
the genesis.manifest as wholly mechanical item, just a patch-per-line count of patches, no space
to adlib.
trinque: ^ cuntoo direly wants
this
trinque: but specifically, blobs not included. "and you will need
the debian 2002 iso; go find"
trinque probably at a point
to digest also
trinque: hm.
the manifest also gives you a place
to name blobs.
ben_vulpes: i'll have
to doodle, cannot do
this live
ben_vulpes: putting
the codebasehash in headers doesn't work
then, as
there is no 'file
that will always be
touched'
that is a part of v
to participate in
the
toposort
ben_vulpes: how is a4
to indicate
that it needs both a3 and a3' otherwise?
a111: Logged on 2017-12-27 02:03 asciilifeform: or, on other end of
the possible, a vtron
that somehow understands
that a call of foo necessarily depends on
the patch
that birthed foo... and requires disambiguation only if >1 foo exists in
the
tree
ben_vulpes: it'll need codebasehashprepatch and codebasehashpostpatch i
think
a111: Logged on 2017-12-27 01:58 asciilifeform: i'd like
to encourage
trinque
to put some of his 'crackpot' algos 'to paper', as articles.
the hypertext
thing was interesting imho, for instance, and so was earlier
trinque pill for 'mining is a bug', and possibly other occasions. dun be afraid
to write down conjectures,
trinque , gauss did
mircea_popescu:
http://btcbase.org/log/2017-12-27#1758974 << very much so ; and especially on a blog.
there's utterly nothing wrong with being wrong, and discover it over
time, especially if gracious about it. not like you sign
the damned
things, nor like
the distinction isn't very fucking clear a a matter of public policy.
☝︎ mircea_popescu: otherwise what, we rebuild africa, "sonny we sat here and marveled at
this mud for 955 generations"
mircea_popescu: trinque gotta force emergence of sanity
through some sort of rational process.
trinque: and yet, I can see
the entire
thing from
the other perspective still,
that cpp is broken,
trb itself not a single concept but a mud, etc
mircea_popescu: anyway,
this'll need moar discussions, i'm not specifiying anything on dec 26th.
trinque: "let it be known
that
there are
these files, with
these hashes" "I have changed
these;
their hashes are now ..."
trinque: manifest can be
the patch header nearly as is
mircea_popescu: no, it's signed. it simply is not used in
the one spot where
the codebase hash is calculated.
ben_vulpes: hash of
the patched codebase including
the patched manifest with hash of patched codebase in it?
mircea_popescu: this has
the advantage
that you can readily understand what any press is made of by looking in root.
mircea_popescu: how about a convention whereby all new genesises must contain a manifest.genesis file, which file will be constantly patched on each patchj, no exceptions, by adding a line which reads : "This is patch #x and
the codebase hash is blabla".
☟︎ mircea_popescu: trinque kitten
trying
to get into
the backseat so i can play with her
tits ever so briefly kissed my new suit pant's leg, now i have a
typically indicative white spot on it.
tbh i knida like
the look of it.
trinque: mircea_popescu: yep, concatenate every single item in
the path diff processed, use *that* hash as antecedent and
that recalculated as expected.
ben_vulpes: moreover i want
to bring up another overlooked point which is
that it is illegal
to press a
tree with
these
two patches side by side
mircea_popescu: anyway, and
the proposed fix for
this is
to actually add a hash for
the whole filebase in each patch ?
mircea_popescu: hey, i spent most of
the intervening day revelring! i have circumstrances!
a111: Logged on 2017-12-25 22:56 ben_vulpes:
the specifics of
this case is
that increase_aggression_levels
touches *only* net.cpp and excise_hash_truncations
touches a whole lotta stuff but *not* net.cpp
mircea_popescu: because otherwise,
touching entirely different filesets,
their precedence can not currently be established as per extant v
trinque: totally, if I have
to edit something
to name it as antecedent
mircea_popescu: the ~only way
to establish a lineage among
these
two so a3` is properly a4 is if
the patch is spuriously modified
to add a "hey v sucks" comment in Fj
mircea_popescu: so
the idea is, you got up
to a2, which consists of files F1... Fi ; now one patch call it a3
touches file Fj, and another patch call it a3`
touches file Fk
mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes oh it finally dawned on me what
this is about. sorry it
takes so long.
ben_vulpes: so
then for a3'
to be an a4, it must
touch an unrelated file in a3, forever crufting up
the codebase with v artifacts.
trinque: "I edited
the networking code and added better logging statements which requires
the better logging code on fray, but I didn't edit
the logging code."
mircea_popescu: it doesn't matter which files
they
touch. a4 will build upon one of
them, and
then a5 on a4, and
the unbuild upon one is left as a "fray" on
the rope.
ben_vulpes: a3 and a3' can
touch a disjoint set of files and never be depended upon by an a4 without mutating unrelated files
to ensure dependency is properly codified.
trinque: which is where I got
to "concatenate whole cppwad and hash
that" as
that's your cpp program anyway.
mircea_popescu: there's still a disconnect because i don't understand what
the hell you mean.
trinque: yes, but
the method of inclusion by diddling unrelated file is frivolous and less meaningful
than explicitly denoting
the relationship
mircea_popescu: (this results in an immediate reimplementation of eg's linus
torvald's linux codebase management, except properly and per protocol rather
than ad-hoc and in a manner nobody can explain or meaningfully defend)
mircea_popescu: if
the patch
tree goes a1->a2->a3/a3` your position is now
to choose which of a3 or a3` counts, and which doesn't count.
the discarded one may be scavenged for useful content, but it will never be a proper patch.
a111: Logged on 2017-12-26 18:26 mircea_popescu: so as
the reconciler, you get
to pick which of ~either~ a ~or~ b
to count in your considered oppinion as
the republican and which as
the heretic.
a111: Logged on 2017-12-27 01:52
trinque: only way
to make a 3rd improvement rely on
two distinct improvements in past is
to put cruft in both.
trinque: that is what I mean by a merge, and has
the same result.
mircea_popescu: trinque
there's an ambiguity here i'm possibly responsible for
though not intended :
to "regrind", ie
to
take a pile of patches and make
them into one single patch ; as opposed
to re-genesis, which is what happened with eg mpi.
mircea_popescu: whereas
the pantsuit psychotic cleaving, where ~some kinds~ of spam are spam (ostensibly because
they came from russian hackers as per
their bayesian filters ?) whereas some other kinds of spam magicaloly "aren't spam" somehow, because pravda said it, or some "transgender" schmuck said it, or whatever.
trinque: specifically what people have been doing when "regrinding" is adding comments
to unrelated files and
thus including
their patch in
the
tree.
mircea_popescu: somehow
the voice model makes spam such a rarity in #trilema, people actually have
the mental vigour
to evaluate it!
mircea_popescu: so on. because "it's spam" and
that means "it shouldn't be read" and
they actually have a consensus on
this, which
they idiotically but universally misrepresent as somehow different from any other cultish behaviour, such as believing "racism" or "global warming" or "witchcraft" are
things.
mircea_popescu: and in unrelated lets-suck-our-own-cocks-we-utterly-deserve-it : consider
that
the whole l0de
thing started because someone from here checked out a SPAMMED item.
the fuctard/pantsuit "engineers" in name only in EVERY OTHER fucking channel ~think~
themselves all open-minded and intelligent and whatever, yet i can make a very obviously correct and banal prediction -
they wouldn't have followed it, nor in any case escalated and
mircea_popescu: trinque which is a valid
thing
to do, but NOT if one wishes
to at
the same
timeeschew regrinding/genesising
a111: Logged on 2017-12-27 04:02
trinque: I assume you mean A2 and B3
trinque: as I cannot put a definition
to merge
that is not "destroyed vertex on
this graph, because it was by my lights wrong, and created a new one"
a111: Logged on 2017-12-27 03:43 mircea_popescu: let me put it
this way, maybe resolves problem : v unpermits a specific kind of hack within
the purview of
this discussion, wherein one
tries
to design after
the fact. correctly designed items will have
the larger bits (by footprint) earlier in
the patch
tree ; and fray out correctly. github-style nonsensica commonly attempts
to discover
that "hey,
this johnny come lately item should have been an evie-comes-early MODULE, let'
trinque: why prefer
this
to being capable
to merge?
mircea_popescu: whereas K would be wrong
to attempt same, and instead should regrind a whole new genesis, call it D, even if it is made up of
the reunion of
the As and Bs he uses.
mircea_popescu: now,
the v doctrine as it stands right now, both on logs and actual precedent, at least as far as i understand it (but
this is vacuous both as a representation and as a history, as most important questions haven't yet been seriously
tested) -- is
that Z is right
to simply sign a patch on B-genesis ;
mircea_popescu: at
this moment, if lord K observes
that he could use
the
tree of X up
to A2 and
the
tree of Y up
to A3 ~together~ he could install D4 on
this pile and similarily
to Z produce a different still useful item.
mircea_popescu: then along comes lord Z, and
this lord Z observes
that if he used B3 and instead of B4 installed C4 on
the same
top, he'd get a wholly different but entirely useful
to him item. so he makes
this.
mircea_popescu: so suppose lord X makes
tree A : A1->A2->A3->A4 are patches, delivering some kind of utility we don't care
to specify.
trinque: because
the hashes are hashes of
touched files
trinque: current V requires
that a file actually got edited
to be an antecedent, but C editing B's work does not mean he's discarding A's, and A regrinding his patch means editing something edited in C
to get in
trinque: I don't see
that regrinding solves it
trinque: takes what constitutes context for
the patch and puts it in
the hand of
the operator
trinque: right, so if we could do
this, name unchanged antecedents
that are required, could merge A's log patch and B's db patch in C's subsequent patch without having
to manually edit A's or B's
a111: Logged on 2017-12-05 13:27 mircea_popescu: no but see, we use different
terminology. i do not assign anything
to "code written".
the source of code,
to my eyes, is he in
the wot who has read it.
trinque: sure, in
the vpatch would be "I require
this list of antecedent items, subset S of which I intend
to change
thus"
trinque: back briefly on
the frayed rope, what's harmful about naming an antecedent
that you didn't edit, but require
mircea_popescu: as history ended up unfurling, "let's
truncate hash
to 10 chars or 20 chars depending"
takes one from 2009
to some portion of 2018. better
than nothing ; much less
than could have been had, if only.
mircea_popescu: there's no difference i can observe between indiancandy scratching at
the door and satoshi scratching at
the door.
there's a way
to get in -- getting in "on
their own
terms" is not on
the
table at all.
mircea_popescu: man did not bother, which can only be rendered as "man
told us in no uncertain
terms
to fuck off", well...
the sentiment is mutual.
mircea_popescu: relevancy is dearly bought ; man wanted
to still be in
the genesis of 2017, man should have made proper db calls, proper logs, etc.
trinque: proper hypertext system (itself based upon v) provides
the
talmud commentary
thing endlessly
mircea_popescu: whosoever deeply cares about
the historically irrelevant accident of windows-bitcoin-0.1 is more
than welcome
to diff his own sources of
that against
tmsr-bitcoin
trinque: asciilifeform: as a carving
tool for
the graph of knowledge
mircea_popescu: under
the authority of
the republic ; not
trying
to enact selves out of
the well
threadbare wizard cloak of satoshi.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform i intend
to prove no such
thing
to no such martian.