On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> wrote: > Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 12:54:50 -0600: >> (I'll also note that we actually *do* have a checksum by this point, >> only it is the md5 provided by close_file(), and Ev2 uses sha1s >> exclusively, so we have to recalculate. I suspect this will be a > > Only sha1? It allows neither md5 nor sha256? Why?
"Convention" would be my initial response. It makes much more sense to standardize checksum kinds across the system than to have a mixed environment. Any checksum can help detect corruption, but being able to answer the question "is this content the same as that content?" is much more difficult in a mixed-checksum environment. sha1 felt like a reasonable choice[1]. I could be overestimating the negatives, though. What reasons do you suppose we *should* allow arbitrary checksum types? -Hyrum [1] Though, given the timeline of Ev2 and the proposed timeline for sha3, I'm really interested in the possibility of using sha3 when standardized, throughout *all* of Subversion. (But that's a completely separate discussion.) -- uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy http://www.uberSVN.com/
