Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 14:59, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Philipp Marek
>> <philipp.marek_at_emerion.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Donnerstag, 26. März 2009, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> With the new rep-sharing feature we in theory do not store the file
>>>> multiple times in the repository. So what if a client were to tell
>>>> the server what it was going to send, along with the checksums, and
>>>> the server were to reply, OK, send me this one, but not that one. I
>>>> already have it?
>>>>
>>>> I recall you were thinking of something similar in WC-NG for
>>>> checkout/update etc. If the server is going to give the file it
>>>> already has in its cache, it could skip downloading it.
>>>>
>>> I'd like to remind of the "fs-rep-sharing branch" discussion last year ...
>>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0853.shtml
>>>
>>> Just using the MD5 might not be enough to define files as "equal"; at least
>>> use SHA256 or something like that.
>>>
>> What's good enough for the repository storage, ought to be good enough
>> for this. I thought it was changed to SHA-1 or something anyway?
>>
>
> The storage keys them via SHA1, I believe.
>
> We certainly keep both in the repository.
>
> Right now, the client really only deals with MD5 checksums for
> historical reasons. When we revamp the editor interface, then we can
> switch to SHA1.
>
I've always felt that using *both* SHA1 and MD5 would be best ...
they're based on different algorithms, which makes it that much harder
to spoof both.
-- Brane
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1431670
Received on 2009-03-26 17:08:47 CET