Thanks for the detailed replies.
I will make the leap to v2.1 shortly.
Thanks for Fossils-ha!
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 3:11 PM, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I am asking since I would prefer to create new repo's with sha3 now
> using fossil 2.
On Mar 9, 2017, at 3:11 PM, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I am asking since I would prefer to create new repo's with sha3 now using
> fossil 2.1.
That’s what you will get by default. You have to go out of your way with
Fossil 2.1+ to get a new SHA-1 based repo.
> Then figure how to update/reb
On 3/9/17, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote:
> Confused a bit reading this...will Fossil 2.1 default to sha3 or sha1
> hardened?
The default hash-policy is "auto", which means use Hardened-SHA1 for
all repos that have only SHA1 artifacts, but promote to "sha3" in any
repository that contains one or more
Confused a bit reading this...will Fossil 2.1 default to sha3 or sha1
hardened?http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/hashpolicy.wiki"A
Pure SHA3 FutureAt some point in the future, years from now, after
everybody has finally upgraded to Fossil 2.0 or later, the default hash
policy will
On Mar 9, 2017, at 3:00 PM, Warren Young wrote:
>
> Maybe then just a notice in Admin > Configuration or similar: “Hey, you know
> you’ve got a repo that Fossil 1.x can’t read, right? Just checking.”
It could be conditional based on the repository age, disappearing after a week
or a month. A
On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> The "fossil new" command creates an initial, empty check-in which is
> suppose to become the ancestor of all future check-ins. That check-in
> will have a SHA3 hash, unless you use the --sha1 option on "fossil
> new”.
Maybe then just a notice
On 3/9/17, Warren Young wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>>
>> On 3/9/17, Warren Young wrote:
>>> Our newbie may be setting up a repo that
>>> they know needs to be accessible to Fossil 1.x clients, and they can’t
>>> force
>>> the upgrade.
>>
>> Our newbie is going to ne
On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> On 3/9/17, Warren Young wrote:
>> Our newbie may be setting up a repo that
>> they know needs to be accessible to Fossil 1.x clients, and they can’t force
>> the upgrade.
>
> Our newbie is going to need to know about the --sha1 option to "foss
On 3/9/17, Warren Young wrote:
>Our newbie may be setting up a repo that
> they know needs to be accessible to Fossil 1.x clients, and they can’t force
> the upgrade.
Our newbie is going to need to know about the --sha1 option to "fossil
new". Otherwise, the initial check-in created will use a S
On Mar 9, 2017, at 2:24 PM, Richard Hipp wrote:
>
> On 3/9/17, Eduard wrote:
>>
>> Are there plans to expose the 'hash-policy' configuration option for
>> modification in the fossil web interface?
>
> No. I was hoping to avoid yet another configuration option that
> people have to think about
On 3/9/17, Eduard wrote:
>
> Are there plans to expose the 'hash-policy' configuration option for
> modification in the fossil web interface?
>
No. I was hoping to avoid yet another configuration option that
people have to think about when setting up a new Fossil instance.
hash-policy is suppose
Hello,
Are there plans to expose the 'hash-policy' configuration option for
modification in the fossil web interface?
Best,
Eduard
___
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
12 matches
Mail list logo
