mirrors/git-annex
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages 1 Wiki Activity Actions

Added a comment: Ah, the barber paradox

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
http://meep.pl/ 2012-10-05 06:51:12 +00:00 • committed by admin
parent a4ffc7d155
commit 492d62ce20
1 changed files with 17 additions and 0 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

17
doc/design/assistant/blog/day_98__preferred_content/comment_1_2136618e3515d0ac6369a41f1934ec2a._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="http://meep.pl/"
ip="193.23.174.18"
subject="Ah, the barber paradox"
date="2012-10-05T06:51:11Z"
content="""
Nice. Would (not in=here) be the simplest paradoxical expression?
Is just disregarding the target repo completely during checks a possibility? This would interpret (not copies=trusted:X) as \"not in X *other* trusted repositories, no matter whether we are trusted or not\", and (not in=here) just as \"true\". I think this should generally arrive at the same results as the option 2., but by definition of the expression meaing, not by rewriting.
Alternative 3 (or is my wording different enough to be 3a?) - check that the invariant \"we have all the known files matching our PCE and only these files\" would hold after an operation before actually performing it - could be bistable if done both for gets and drops:
* (not in=here) and we do not have the file -> get thinks \"if we get it, we have a file not matching the PCE\" -> get does not get it;
* (not in=here) and we do have the file -> drop thinks \"if we drop it, there exists a file matching the PCE which we miss\" -> drop does not drop it.
This is not necessarily bad. Checking just for drops should be monostable, I guess, but doesn't it look a bit arbitrary? (Though it would be again equivalent to option 2, wouldn't it? So maybe not that arbitrary.)
"""]]