Branko Čibej wrote on Thu, 05 Oct 2017 18:44 +0200: > On 05.10.2017 16:46, Julian Foad wrote: > > Calculation of a directory's hash would have to happen for each > > directory where the user has mixed access to the immediate children, > > and for all parents of such a directory up to the root. > > And /that/ is the painful part: the fact that you need a depth-first > traversal of the tree in order to calculate the hash for the root > directory. And the reason why we're not exposing the directory hash, > even if the FS stores it.
What if we only returned a checksum for nodes to which the user had full recursive access? E.g., with "[/A/B] *=", the caller would be able to retrieve checksums for /A/C, /A/D, /A/mu, and /A's property hash, and for descendants of the first two, but that's it.
