mako added a comment.

I think it would be more surprising to have the same SHA1 for two different (in any way) revisions than it would to have a SHA1 that reflects something other than the SHA1 of the primary/historical content field. So I guess I like the revision-level
<sha1> reflecting the hash of all parts of the revision.

As @Halfak sugguests, checksums in the dumps currently aren't always reproducible from the text of all dumps (admittedly, these exceptions are rare and this fact is not widely known) so it would have been unwise to have been counting on this in the past.


TASK DETAIL
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T199121

EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/

To: ArielGlenn, mako
Cc: mako, FaFlo, Halfak, vrandezo, Denny, kchapman, tstarling, awight, JAllemandou, hoo, pmiazga, Nemo_bis, brion, Tgr, Aklapper, Fjalapeno, ArielGlenn, daniel, Nandana, kostajh, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, Lunewa, QZanden, LawExplorer, JJMC89, Agabi10, D3r1ck01, SBisson, gnosygnu, Wikidata-bugs, aude, GWicke, jayvdb, fbstj, santhosh, Jdforrester-WMF, Mbch331, Rxy, Jay8g, Ltrlg, bd808, Legoktm
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs

Reply via email to