Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 13:16:13 -0600:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf 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_f
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Daniel Shahaf 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.
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 md
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> hwri...@apache.org wrote on Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 01:55:55 -:
>> Author: hwright
>> Date: Wed Feb 8 01:55:54 2012
>> New Revision: 1241733
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1241733&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Ev2 shims: Make sure that i
hwri...@apache.org wrote on Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 01:55:55 -:
> Author: hwright
> Date: Wed Feb 8 01:55:54 2012
> New Revision: 1241733
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1241733&view=rev
> Log:
> Ev2 shims: Make sure that if we are providing content to alter_file(), we
> are also provi
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> That log message doesn't describe the change. You were already computing and
> passing a checksum.
>
> Maybe the bug was that you did not close TARGET to finalize the checksum
> computation?
I think that makes sense. Looking at other receivers
That log message doesn't describe the change. You were already computing
and passing a checksum.
Maybe the bug was that you did not close TARGET to finalize the checksum
computation?
On Feb 7, 2012 8:56 PM, wrote:
7 matches
Mail list logo
