> On 2/28/17, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote:
> >
> > (4) There are no hash options. You cannot choose to use any hash
> > algorithm other than SHA3-256 for new content.
> >
> > (6) The only complication to upgrading is that you need to update all
> > of your fossil (or fossil.exe) binaries to version 2.0 at the same
> > time.
> Maybe a better approach is for Fossil 2.0 to use SHA3 hashes for new
> content if and only if the repository already contains some other
> SHA3 content. If a repository is still 100% SHA1, Fossil will not
> change that. But once a single SHA3 artifact gets into the
> repository,
How would this first artifact into the repository, given that F2.0
would not create any until there is one ? Mote that having it sync'd
in only moves the question to the repository sync'd from.
> all new content becomes SHA3. This would allow Fossil
> 2.0 and Fossil 1.x to collaborate and continue to work together on
> the same repositories.
> Then after a month or so we can release Fossil 2.1, in which all new
> content is always SHA3.
--
So long,
Andreas Kupries <akupr...@shaw.ca>
<http://core.tcl.tk/akupries/>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fossil-dev mailing list
fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org
http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
