Re: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c)

2017-05-23 Thread Jacek Materna
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 09:05:25AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:

Re: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c)

2017-05-22 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 09:05:25AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote: >>> This code is still in trunk without any of the discussed improvements, so >>>

Re: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c)

2017-05-09 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 09:05:25AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote: >> This code is still in trunk without any of the discussed improvements, so >> this change is currently part of 1.10.0-alpha1. >> >> If we don't implement the

RE: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c)

2017-04-04 Thread Markus Schaber
Hi, > -Original Message- > From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de] > Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 12:19 PM > To: Daniel Shahaf > Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org > Subject: Re: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - > /subversion/trunk/subversion/

Re: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c)

2017-04-04 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 10:00:31AM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Note that we can still do what rep-cache now does: treat equality of > checksums as a sensitive but not specific test for bit-for-bit equality; > that is: checksum the file, and if the resulting value is equal to the > stored value,

Re: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c)

2017-04-04 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:33:18 +0200: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 09:05:25AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote: > > This code is still in trunk without any of the discussed improvements, so > > this change is currently part of 1.10.0-alpha1. > > > > If we don't implement the

Re: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c)

2017-04-04 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 09:05:25AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote: > This code is still in trunk without any of the discussed improvements, so > this change is currently part of 1.10.0-alpha1. > > If we don't implement the improvements I think we should check if we want > to revert to the 1.0-1.9

Re: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c)

2017-02-20 Thread Bert Huijben
This code is still in trunk without any of the discussed improvements, so this change is currently part of 1.10.0-alpha1. If we don't implement the improvements I think we should check if we want to revert to the 1.0-1.9 behavior before we really look at releasing 1.10. See discussion below

Re: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c)

2016-09-08 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On 5 September 2016 at 19:23, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On 5 September 2016 at 14:46, Bert Huijben wrote: >>> -Original Message- >>> From: i...@apache.org [mailto:i...@apache.org] >>> Sent: maandag 5 september 2016 13:33 >>> To:

Re: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c)

2016-09-06 Thread Branko Čibej
On 05.09.2016 19:09, Stefan Hett wrote: > On 9/5/2016 6:23 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> With all above the new behavior should be working better or the same >> in all cases. I agree that 50% approximation may be incorrect for some >> specific binary formats (case 6) like sqlite db. > To be fair, I'd

Re: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c)

2016-09-05 Thread Stefan Hett
On 9/5/2016 6:23 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: With all above the new behavior should be working better or the same in all cases. I agree that 50% approximation may be incorrect for some specific binary formats (case 6) like sqlite db. To be fair, I'd argue that in case of binary file modifications the

Re: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c)

2016-09-05 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On 5 September 2016 at 14:46, Bert Huijben wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: i...@apache.org [mailto:i...@apache.org] >> Sent: maandag 5 september 2016 13:33 >> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org >> Subject: svn commit: r1759233 - >>

RE: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c)

2016-09-05 Thread Markus Schaber
Hi, From: Bert Huijben [mailto:b...@qqmail.nl] > From: i...@apache.org [mailto:i...@apache.org] > > Sent: maandag 5 september 2016 13:33 > > To: comm...@subversion.apache.org > > Subject: svn commit: r1759233 - > > /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c > > > > Author: ivan > > Date:

Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c)

2016-09-05 Thread Bert Huijben
> -Original Message- > From: i...@apache.org [mailto:i...@apache.org] > Sent: maandag 5 september 2016 13:33 > To: comm...@subversion.apache.org > Subject: svn commit: r1759233 - > /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c > > Author: ivan > Date: Mon Sep 5 11:32:54 2016 > New