Re: [subversion-dev] Subversion design document up

> > I'm glad to hear you agree with me that strong checksums are necessary.
> I'd
> > settle for CRC or adler32, but SHA sure would be nice.
>
> I'm not using checksums. I'm using cryptographic hashes. The difference is
> significant. CRCs and adler32's provide a good means of integrity checking,
> but they collide too frequently to serve as *names*. In the DCMS repository,
> the "repository name" of an object *is* its SHA-1 hash. One effect of this
> is to greatly simplify transaction and replication handling.

I like the idea of the SHA-1 hashes for a binary repository very much.
I'm
not sure that it applies as neatly to a "human readable" repository,
where
easily identifiable file names/objects would make debugging a hell of a
lot
easier.

-- 
Daniel Rall <dlr@collab.net>
http://collab.net/ | open source | do the right thing