This message is cross-posted to fossil-users and fossil-dev.
Follow-ups should go to fossil-dev only, please. Thanks.
I propose that the next release of Fossil be called "Fossil 2.0", that
it occur before Easter (2017-04-16), and that it have the following
features:
(1) Fossil 2.0 is backwards
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:23 PM, wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 04:23:06 + (UTC)
> From: "K. Fossil user"
> To: Fossil SCM user's discussion
> Subject:
> 2/ semi?
>
> > « I
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 5:54 PM,
wrote:
>
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:38:48 +0100
> From: Joerg Sonnenberger
> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Google Security Blog: Announcing the first
> SHA1 collision
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at
Hello,
Does this mean that it is not so hard to adapt SHA algorithm to a better one ?:D
DRH suspected that it would be hard :D :D :D
Of course I don't agree with DRH ; I will never agree with him about security
discuss either ... :-|
Thank to "sgbeal". :-)
Best Regards
K.
De : Stephan
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
> And in any event, I don't think centralization is a factor here.
> Fossil is better positioned than Git or Mercurial to transition to a
> different hash algorithm because the Fossil implementation uses a
> relational
On 2/26/17, Tony Papadimitriou wrote:
>
> how urgent is the need to
> transition away from SHA1?
>
From a technical standpoint, it is not very urgent, in my assessment.
However, from a PR standpoint, I think it needs to happen quickly.
It can also be a big PR win if we are able
On 2/23/17, Warren Young wrote:
>
> I think Fossil is in a much better position to do this sort of migration
> than, say, Git, due to its semi-centralized nature.
Though they are technically distinct, in the minds of many users Git
and GitHub are the same thing. And GitHub
Leaving aside for a moment the consequences in general of the presumed
imminent SHA1 collapse (and some of the valid points already made by Linus
regarding Git):
If FOSSIL will refuse (and I actually tried it with those two same SHA1
PDFs) to accept a file (commit, push, pull) with the same
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:02 PM,
wrote:
>
> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:01:56 -0700
> From: Warren Young
> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Google Security Blog: Announcing the first
> SHA1 collision
>
> The PHC scheme would allow
I'm happy to see you thinking along those lines.
>From a performance standpoint, I would rather see Fossil adopt the
BLAKE2 hash, as it is one of the fastest of the SHA3 finalists, and has
adjustable output hash size.
On 27/02/2017 3:48, Richard Hipp wrote:
> On 2/26/17, Tony Papadimitriou
10 matches
Mail list logo