On 02/06/2012 03:54 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote: > On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 15:44, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: >>> On 02/06/2012 03:41 PM, Greg Stein wrote: >>>> That is certainly an easier approach. "You use the old interface? >>>> Fine. You won't get base checksum verification cuz we'll always pass >>>> NULL." ... that seems like a fine position to take. >>> >>> This might be a fine position to take for some third-party consumer of the >>> APIs, but I hope you aren't advocating that we toss out such a core data >>> integrity check within Subversion itself. Are you? >> >> Theoretically, we'll be converted over to Ev2 and the compatibility >> shim will not be used in our product. Only third-parties who choose to >> stick to the old Ev1 (delta editor) interfaces will lose the integrity >> check. > > And I'll note that the base checksum check is superfluous, as the > resulting contents check is still valid and being performed.
That alone doesn't make the check superfluous. To make such a claim, you must demonstrate that the only service such a check provides is toward the integrity of the resulting contents. But I believe you'll find that it is primarily used to avoid even attempting the application of a text delta to a base which is already corrupt, a service which cannot be offered by the other checksum, *especially* in the scenarios it is employed by your shim (where the text delta will blindly overwrite whatever previous text was associated with the file because it is not, in fact, a true delta at all). -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
