Timeline for Explicit DAG instead of Vector Clocks for synchronisation
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 21, 2016 at 11:31 | comment | added | Benjohn | Hi @bikeman868 I've voted you up for a net 0 (sorry). Your answer is helpful, even if couched with uncertainty! While references or authoritative answers are always nice, stack exchanges don't mandate that! Your suggestion makes good sense with points in comments on the question. It seems like when you want to store history and be able to merge histories, then a DAG is appropriate. When you don't store history and want synchronisation and consensus on the current state, then vector clocks are what you need. | |
| Aug 13, 2016 at 21:30 | comment | added | bikeman868 | Both Git and Mecurial are real world examples of peer to peer change synchronization using DAG, and I hope that benjohn will find my answer helpful even though you voted it down. | |
| Aug 13, 2016 at 21:27 | comment | added | bikeman868 | The way I understood the question, they were asking if there are any real world examples of where DAG is used rather than vector clocks. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 21:30 | comment | added | gnat | Without an explanation, this answer may become useless in case if someone else posts an opposite opinion. For example, if someone posts a claim like "Propversion control systems like Git and Mercurial use vector clocks rather than the DAG approach", how would this answer help reader to pick of two opposing opinions? Consider editing it into a better shape, to meet How to Answer quality standards. | |
| Aug 12, 2016 at 21:03 | review | Late answers | |||
| Aug 12, 2016 at 21:26 | |||||
| Aug 12, 2016 at 20:44 | history | answered | bikeman868 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |