Correct. #2 is moot given the rejection strategy moving forward. On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Jacek Materna wrote on Tue, May 09, 2017 at 14:39:51 +0200: > > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> > wrote: > > > Jacek Materna wrote on Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:46:39 +0200: > > >> Team, > > >> > > >> I wanted to start a discussion around the FAQ (and 1.10 rls. notes) > as it > > >> pertains to the SHA-1 issue affecting all versions of SVN RE: > "Continue the > > >> 1.10 alphas?" thread. > > >> > > >> 1) We should bias towards pro-active mitigation of this issue in > docs/code > > >> as we know a real solution will likely NOT come with 1.10 after all. > > > > > > Agreed: a solution in code would be preferable, but whichever cases are > > > not working as we want them to, should be documented. > > > > > >> 2) Consider patching 1.10 with de-duplication off by default ? > > > > > > What's the rationale behind this? (honest question) > > > > > > I can see that this would, for one, allow sha1 collisions to be > > > committed over RA, but I'm not sure what benefit you have in mind. > > > > > > > Apologize for the ambiguity. I had the representation sharing feature > > in-mind (fsfs.conf). > > Ideally we know we want to fix it so that it recognizes this scenario as > > two different files and does not try to share the content. > > Current trunk behaves this way since r1785734/r1785754. Moreover, given > the status of the "[PATCH] reject SHA1 collisions" thread, it seems > likely that 1.10.0 will refuse to admit collisions into the repository > using a FSFS-level check that's active whenever rep-sharing is. > I assume these changes address the concern underlying your point #2? > > Looking forward to the revised patch. > > Cheers, > > Daniel > -- Jacek Materna CTO Assembla 210-410-7661
