On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 19:48, Brett Wooldridge wrote:
> I have to agree with you. The checksum (or MD5 hash) method was going
> to be my
> suggested solution. Additionally, it seems like running a 'diff' off of
> a local cached copy
> is possibly frought with issues of it's own. What if the file has
> changed dramatically on
> the server through another commit? My diff isn't going to show that?
No, it just means you need to give the proper arguments to 'svn diff'.
With no arguments, it only prints local mods (no network access). It
also has modes where it compares local vs. repository, or repository vs.
repository. I'm starting to think you've never used svn. ;-)
>
> Anyway, regardless of the diff issue, it seems like update could
> certainly send an MD5 hash
> along with the version. In fact, I'll be glad to implement it, if it
> would be welcome.
Actually, Philip is right. I forgot about the checksum feature. SVN
client and server *do* use checksums when passing binary diffs in either
direction over the network. They always pass a 'result' checksum ("what
the file should be after the diff is applied"), and often pass a 'base'
checksum as well ("the file you should be patching").
So my earlier statements about corruption aren't entirely true: you'll
just get zillions of failed updates and commits -- all errors about
checksum mismatches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 12 02:56:28 2004