| daniel added a comment. |
@Halfak having per-slot hashes is not controversial, the question is what to do with the <sha1> tag that currently exists on the revision level. If we make this the has of the main slot, we will break the assumption that two revisions that have the same hash there have the same content, and thus constitute a revert. Any consumer making that assumption would then miss-detect reverts.
To me, it seems better to use the existing <sha1> for the combined revision-level hash, and have a new hash attribute in each of the <text> tags, because this would avoid braking the "same hash, same content, must be a revert" assumption. But it would break the "this hash is a hash of the bytes the text text tag" assumption. But I don't know of any consumer that actually relies on this.
Cc: FaFlo, Halfak, vrandezo, Denny, kchapman, tstarling, awight, JAllemandou, hoo, pmiazga, Nemo_bis, brion, Tgr, Aklapper, Fjalapeno, ArielGlenn, daniel, Nandana, kostajh, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, Lunewa, QZanden, LawExplorer, JJMC89, Agabi10, D3r1ck01, SBisson, gnosygnu, Wikidata-bugs, aude, GWicke, jayvdb, fbstj, santhosh, Jdforrester-WMF, Mbch331, Rxy, Jay8g, Ltrlg, bd808, Legoktm
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
