On 03/19/2010 02:03 PM, Michael Witten wrote:
Secondly, you're being ridiculous; even if that ridiculous scenario
played out not-infrequently
It's not a matter of frequency. If you want a "UU" identification,
collisions must not even happen *once*.
I've got news for you. The UUIDs generated by uuidgen CAN collide:
The new UUID can reasonably be considered unique
among all UUIDs created on the local system, and
among UUIDs created on other systems in the past
and in the future.
Please read the UUID generation algorithm.
You're creating a straw man argument; conceptually, what I propose is
better than what the current system provides because it would decrease
the rate at which identity entropy increases.
Maybe you have to define entropy. For human consumers, "Paolo Bonzini
<pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>" has considerably less "entropy" than
8aacc35ffca0d34fccf8a750e84e3a81bdcb940b, as does even "Paolo Bonzini
<bonzini@xxxxxxx, pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>". For non-human consumers, a
good mailmap will do.
I have an idea. Start your own website uuidemail.com. One
registers and gets an alias for their email, something like
8aacc35ffca0d34fccf8a750e84e3a81bdcb940b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Then
people can start using
8aacc35ffca0d34fccf8a750e84e3a81bdcb940b+pbonzini--redhat.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
as their git user.email. I bet nobody will.
This is nonsense that betrays your misunderstanding.
Why? What does (name, email, uuid) provide over (name, concat(uuid,
email))? Nothing.
Go read the thread until you understand.
I am not alone.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html