On Sep 14, 2015, at 4:24 PM, Ron W <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Warren Young <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What would be gained is that people wouldn’t be trying to work out how to > > match sha1sum commands to Fossil output, > > fossil artifact id | sha1sum - > sha1sum path/to/file
See, that just proves the point: the “SHA1 Hash” line on the /info page gives you a *checkin* ID, not an artifact ID. (Yes, yes, I know there are artifact IDs below that, but we’re not talking about them.) In fact, this whole artifact ID vs checkin ID distinction completely flew over my head until recently. I had to re-read the file format wiki document again in the context of this discussion in order to finally grasp it. I think I might have gotten over that hump a bit quicker if the UI was explicit about saying “checkin ID” and “artifact ID” instead of just saying, “Here’s some SHA-1 hashes, enjoy!" > Fossil still can switch hash algorithms. Existing repos probably remain with > SHA1, while new repos would use the new algorithm. Not impossible to convert > a repo, but all IDs would change. Any use of old IDs could utilize tags > generated during the conversion. > > Even a mixed hash repo could exist if a version (or hash) card were > introduced. glibc-based Linux systems cope with this problem in /etc/shadow by tagging the hash: a prefix of $1$ means it’s the old MD5 hash that replaced the ancient crypt(3) algortihm long ago, whereas the Linux box nearest to you probably uses $6$ by default, meaning SHA-512. man 3 crypt for details. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
