DRH question is strange in fact ...
Not everyone would go for a Fossil 2.0 just because their repo ARE SHA1.
Not to mention that, some providers won't move immediately when a stable
release will come.
I've said it in the past : a command line with option such as --sha1 --sha256
and so on is necessary...Of course the Fossil Team did not get it ... [until
people ask for it]
Best Regards
K.
De : Lonnie Abelbeck <[email protected]>
À : Fossil SCM user's discussion <[email protected]>
Envoyé le : Dimanche 5 mars 2017 16h30
Objet : Re: [fossil-users] Fossil Version 2.1 (prerelease)
On Mar 5, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Richard Hipp <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 3/5/17, Lonnie Abelbeck <[email protected]> wrote:
>> For what is planned for Fossil 2.1, will new repos created using 2.1 using:
>> --
>> fossil init --sha1 repo.fossil
>> --
>> be compatible with recent Fossil 1.x versions ?
>
> Yes.
Thanks Richard,
> But why would you want to do that? Fossil 2.0 is out and 2.1 will be out
> soon.
We use a fossil repo to track configuration files on an embedded system
(Asterisk PBX, etc.).
Compatibility between fossil versions far more important to us than any
practical issue with SHA1. Users can upgrade and revert firmware, possibly
containing any version of Fossil.
BTW, I just committed Fossil 2.0 for our next release. We do appreciate the
option to use SHA3 when we decide to.
Thanks the world-class project, Fossil.
Lonnie
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
