Branko Čibej wrote on Thu, 05 Oct 2017 18:44 +0200:
> On 05.10.2017 16:46, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Calculation of a directory's hash would have to happen for each
> > directory where the user has mixed access to the immediate children,
> > and for all parents of such a directory up to the root.
> And /that/ is the painful part: the fact that you need a depth-first
> traversal of the tree in order to calculate the hash for the root
> directory. And the reason why we're not exposing the directory hash,
> even if the FS stores it.
What if we only returned a checksum for nodes to which the user had full
recursive access? E.g., with "[/A/B] *=", the caller would be able to retrieve
checksums for /A/C, /A/D, /A/mu, and /A's property hash, and for descendants
of the first two, but that's it.
Received on 2017-10-05 19:20:37 CEST