On 16.05.2017 15:10, Jacek Materna wrote:
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann
wrote:
On 09.05.2017 20:43, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:46:39AM +0200, Jacek Materna wrote:
Team,
I wanted to start a discussion around the FAQ (and 1.10 rls. notes) as it
pertain
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann
wrote:
> On 09.05.2017 20:43, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:46:39AM +0200, Jacek Materna wrote:
>>>
>>> Team,
>>>
>>> I wanted to start a discussion around the FAQ (and 1.10 rls. notes) as it
>>> pertains to the SHA-1 issue
On 09.05.2017 20:43, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:46:39AM +0200, Jacek Materna wrote:
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.
I have ad
[devs: see penultimate paragraph (grep for "Thoughts")]
Jacek Materna wrote on Thu, May 11, 2017 at 14:56:03 +0200:
> For review.
Thanks for the patch. I'll review the form first, then the content.
Form:
1) Please use unified diff format, as generated by 'svn diff' or 'diff -u'.
What you poste
For review.
best.
-j
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:52 AM, Jacek Materna wrote:
> Correct. #2 is moot given the rejection strategy moving forward.
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
>>
>> Jacek Materna wrote on Tue, May 09, 2017 at 14:39:51 +0200:
>> > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at
Correct. #2 is moot given the rejection strategy moving forward.
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:12 PM, Daniel Shahaf
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
> wrote:
> > > Jacek Materna wrote on Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:46:
Looks great Stefan - will review and work on the FAQ patch this week.
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:46:39AM +0200, Jacek Materna wrote:
> > Team,
> >
> > I wanted to start a discussion around the FAQ (and 1.10 rls. notes) as it
> > pertains t
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 10:46:39AM +0200, Jacek Materna wrote:
> 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.
I have added a small advisory-style writeup we
Jacek Materna wrote on Tue, May 09, 2017 at 14:39:51 +0200:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Shahaf 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
Hi,
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Daniel Shahaf 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 al
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 mitigati
Hi,
On 08/05/17 10:46, Jacek Materna wrote:
>
> Install a pre-commit hook that will reject new instances against known
> collisions. While this will not guarantee protection from new
> collisions, we will keep the hook up-to date as new collisions are
> publicly released.
>
>
> The hook can be fou
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 c
13 matches
Mail list logo