On Mon, Dec 29, 2025 at 1:33 PM Evgeny Kotkov via dev < [email protected]> wrote:
> Evgeny Kotkov <[email protected]> writes: > > > From the RM perspective, I propose we proceed with creating the 1.15.x > branch > > shortly, and defer any other outstanding items to 1.16.x. This should > allow > > us to keep our focus and attention on various tasks required for 1.15.0. > > To avoid any confusion, my opinion as a PMC member regarding the > pristine-checksum-salt branch has not changed [2]: > > ``` > For the history: thread [1] proposes the pristine-checksum-salt branch > that adds the infrastructure to support new pristine checksum kinds in > the > working copy and makes a switch to the dynamically-salted SHA1. > > From the technical standpoint, I think that it would be better to release > the first version of the pristines-on-demand feature having this branch > merged, because now we rely on the checksum comparison to determine if a > file has changed — and currently it's a checksum kind with known > collisions. > > At the same time, having that branch merged probably isn't a formal > release > blocker for the pristines-on-demand feature. Also, considering that the > pristine-checksum-salt branch is currently vetoed by danielsh > (presumably, > for an indefinite period of time), I'd like to note that personally I > have > no objections to proceeding with a release of the pristines-on-demand > feature without this branch. > ``` > > At the same time, from the RM perspective, it seems that the best available > option is to proceed and release the current state. So I intend to move > forward with that, proceeding towards rolling the RC1 build. > > [1]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/xmd7x6bx2mrrbw7k5jr1tdmhhrlr9ljc > [2]: https://lists.apache.org/thread/7q26dxpd076hl3k6yxx6j7xv3zjppbn0 > > > Thanks, > Evgeny Kotkov > Hi all, (For simplicity and due to lack of time today, I am responding to the original message of this thread at this time; I plan to respond to later parts of this thread later...) I concur with the plan to move forward with the 1.15.0 release and leave the checksum issue for 1.16. In the release notes for 1.15, I could draft some additional text to document that when using a Pristines-on-Demand working copy, checksums are relied on more strongly than with traditional, fully-cached working copies. By documenting it, users can make a more informed decision as to which kind of working copy is most appropriate for their use case. I do hope that we can overcome this issue, but there's plenty of work for everyone to get 1.15.0 released, so let's do that first. Cheers, and Happy New Year, Nathan
