Hi,
I think there are two different points, here are my thoughts:
The first point is that both Repository and Client should work fine in case of
collisions. Whatever algorithm we choose, we can never be sure that there won't
be a collision.
That could be achieved e. G. by a mandatory
On 2 Mar 2017, at 6:37, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Garance A Drosehn wrote on Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 14:48:07 -0500:
I do not see how this extended-sha1 would be easier to
break than the current sha1, because it includes the
current sha1, unchanged.
Regarding "easier to break", you were probably
Folks:
The following commands were run on a CentOS 6.x, WANdisco Subversion 1.9.5,
Python 2.7:
--
# svn export https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/
contrib/hook-scripts
# svnadmin create repo
# svn
Garance A Drosehn wrote on Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 14:48:07 -0500:
> On 1 Mar 2017, at 7:18, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 11:01:40 +0100:
> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:17:34PM -0600, Greg Stein wrote:
> >>> I really like this idea.
> >>>
> >>> And we
4 matches
Mail list logo