monotone-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone w/out server machine


From: John Ilves
Subject: Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Monotone w/out server machine
Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 15:43:27 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (X11/20040502)

Hmm, so I could make my database available by putting it on an http server? Wouldn't anyone who downloads it then have my private key? Speaking of which why are keys stored in databases, instead of, say, ~/.monotone/keys?

John

Adam Logghe wrote:

Hey John,

I just started using Monotone in the last 2 weeks and from my
perspective, coming from Arch I wouldn't have been as interested in
Monotone without netsync.

Prior to this change, Monotone really wasn't "peer to peer". You were
forced to go to a web/nntp/mail server as a central depot.

Now because the monotone binary is the server too, I can run monotone
serve on my workstation and do a "sync" from my laptop. Then I take the
laptop to work and fire up "serve" from my desktop there and "sync" from
my laptop.

As I think through the perambulations of working+synching branches with
colleagues this really seems like a huge win being truly peer to peer.

The only real negative I see is not having the ability to "sync" through
 companies that have http proxy only setups (uggggh I hate that). In
this situation you could pull down an entire copy of someones monotone
db. Then run it as a server and sync yourself with that and then pass it
back out to the internet.

Anyway, very happy here with Monotone.

Adam

graydon hoare wrote:
> John Ilves wrote:
>
>> I've seen several references to using a mailing list, nntp server or
>> cgi script as a depot with Monotone, instead of running a Monotone
>> server. I cannot however find anything in the Monotone documentation
>> about this. How would you go about using Monotone in this way?
>
>
> this mode of operation has been removed from monotone; it used to work
> that way, but it required an unacceptable degree of inter-machine and
> temporal coupling -- machines had to keep sequence numbers for one
> another -- so we switched to a new protocol (netsync).
>
> sorry about this. it's a tradeoff. we could have continued to run that
> way, but I felt the costs outweighed the benefits.
>
> -graydon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Monotone-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]