Great! Will do - thanks for the guidance-
-j
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Jacek Materna <jacek_at_assembla.com> wrote:
> > Agreed - let me looking in Stefan's mods - I can take a look at the
> > client-side after that to see if I have a slot in the short-term.
>
> Okay. Concerning the working copy: IIUC if "fixing" means "making it
> possible to store sha1 collisions in a working copy", it's more or
> less impossible to fix this without a "format bump" of the working
> copy format (which means the fix can't be backported to 1.9 or 1.8 --
> and even for trunk / 1.10, a format bump is currently not planned).
> But "fixing" can also mean "rejecting the collision in a graceful
> way". That's probably much more realistic, and perhaps backportable.
> Though I believe there are big questions about the performance impact
> of any solution ...
>
> Anyway, if you want to look into this, please start a new thread to
> discuss your ideas first (we need to come to a consensus first about
> *what behaviour we want*, and how this could be achieved).
>
> > What's a reasonable / agreed way of "giving something more visibility -
> re:
> > hook" ?
>
> I guess the 1.10 release notes are an option. And our FAQ. Maybe a FAQ
> should be the first priority, as this issue applies to all older
> releases. Are you willing to draft something (either as a patch
> against [1], or just as a written suggestion)? If so, please send it
> in another thread too, so we can keep this thread focused on getting
> 1.10 alphas rolling again :-).
>
> [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/site/publish/faq.html
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Johan
>
--
Jacek Materna
CTO
Assembla
210-410-7661
Received on 2017-05-04 15:32:46 CEST