Great! Will do - thanks for the guidance- -j
On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Jacek Materna <ja...@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
