Re: plugins for hashes? (was: Re: Linux Kernel Summit)

On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Greg Stein wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 05:12:01AM +0000, Tripp Lilley wrote:
> > Being one to advocate plugins, I advocate plugins here :)
>
> More complexity than it is worth. We're already debating their utility. The
> marginal utility of a plugin is even less :-)

Understood. I also re-realized that when I saw the previous post go by
reminding me that you were talking about using the built-in facilities in
Apache to do the MD5 :) So put it on the 3.0+ list and I'll be quiet :)

> Hmm. I think we'd have the plain text hash, and a second hash for the diff
> data. Of course, old revisions don't store the plain text, but when we
> restore it, we'll already have its hash (i.e. we computed it when the
> revision first arrived; no big reason to toss it).

Both sound reasonable and should offer sufficient functionality for the
90% case. Cool. Keeping the already-computed earlier hashes around should
also be helpful for the test harness, I'd think...

-- 
   Joy-Loving * Tripp Lilley  *  http://stargate.eheart.sg505.net/~tlilley/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  "Fiber makes you poop." -- From <http://www.pvponline.com/bts_studio.php3>