On 2/25/2017 08:51, b...@qqmail.nl wrote:
>
> I remember some experiments in early development of WC-NG where we
> measured which checksums worked vs which ones were too expensive.
> Going to the SHA1 family was at least 5 times more expensive or so…
>
>
>
> We determined back then SHA1 was good
Hi,
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> [[[
> * tools/hook-scripts/reject-known-sha1-collisions.sh
> Use a more portable syntax for the [(1) (test(1)) tool.
> Handle filenames with literal backslashes.
> ]]]
Thanks, r1784484.
Andreas
On 24.02.2017 06:26, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Andreas Stieger wrote on Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 21:08:43 +0100:
+++ tools/dist/release.py (working copy)
@@ -537,9 +537,9 @@ def roll_tarballs(args):
shutil.move(filename, get_deploydir(args.base_dir))
filename = os.path.join(
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 07:29:30PM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 26.02.2017 18:26, Paul Hammant wrote:
> > Why don't y'all take the same tactic as Git does - SHA1 the contents of the
> > file *and a prepended a type/length field* ?.
>
> And when the hash-colliding files happen to have the same t
On 26.02.2017 18:26, Paul Hammant wrote:
> Why don't y'all take the same tactic as Git does - SHA1 the contents of the
> file *and a prepended a type/length field* ?.
And when the hash-colliding files happen to have the same type and
length, as in the published collision...
Ah, of course, Git is
Why don't y'all take the same tactic as Git does - SHA1 the contents of the
file *and a prepended a type/length field* ?.
That and a tool to back convert SHA1s for existing repos.
Linus weighed in again:
https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/7tp2gYWQugL
Svn is more likely to be used as a s
On 24 Feb 2017, at 15:46, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
> I believe we should prepare a new working format for 1.10.0
> which addresses this problem. I don't see a good way of fixing
> it without a format bump. The bright side of this is that it
> gives us a good reason to get 1.10.0 ready ASAP.
>
> We
7 matches
Mail list logo