Re: Switching from SHA1 to a checksum type without known collisions in 1.15 working copy format (was: Re: Getting to first release of pristines-on-demand feature (#525).)

2022-12-20 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Evgeny Kotkov via dev wrote on Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 11:14:00 +0300: > [Moving discussion to a new thread] > > We currently have a problem that a working copy relies on the checksum type > with known collisions (SHA1). A solution to that problem Why is libsvn_wc's use of SHA-1 a problem? What's

Re: Switching from SHA1 to a checksum type without known collisions in 1.15 working copy format (was: Re: Getting to first release of pristines-on-demand feature (#525).)

2022-12-20 Thread Branko Čibej
On 20.12.2022 09:14, Evgeny Kotkov wrote: 2) We already need a working copy format bump for the pristines-on-demand feature. So using that format bump to solve the SHA1 issue might reduce the overall number of required bumps for users (assuming that we'll still need to switch from SH

Switching from SHA1 to a checksum type without known collisions in 1.15 working copy format (was: Re: Getting to first release of pristines-on-demand feature (#525).)

2022-12-20 Thread Evgeny Kotkov via dev
Karl Fogel writes: > > While here, I would like to raise a topic of incorporating a switch from > > SHA1 to a different checksum type (without known collisions) for the new > > working copy format. This topic is relevant to the pristines-on-demand > > branch, because the new "is the file modifie