It sounds ok to me to match the parent checkin style. However, I do not see a clear advantage to a command "fossil commit --sha3".I think it is more clear and simple a "fossil rebuild --sha3"
RR 2017-03-03 14:29 GMT+01:00 Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org>: > On 3/3/17, Ramon Ribó <ram...@compassis.com> wrote: > > I would take a more conservative > > solution: > > > > Version 2.1 uses SHA3 for new repositories or when actively required to > do > > it (with a rebuild with special options), and continue to use SHA1 for > > existing repositories. > > How about a policy like this for 2.1: > > (1) When creating a new check-in, use the hash algorithm (SHA1 or > SHA3) that is used by the primary parent check-in. > > (2) Exception to (1) above: Use SHA3 for new check-ins if the > > --sha3 > command-line option is used. > > (3) New repositories are initialized using SHA3 > > (4) When new content is added by means other than a check-in > (examples: cluster artifacts added by the server on a sync, Wiki > pages, ticket attachments, or unversioned content files) then use the > hash algorithm that was used by the most recent check-in. > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
