jw schultz writes:
> 1. Yes, you may contribute a patch. I favor the idea of
> being able to supply a checksum seed.
>
> 2. Lets get the option name down to a more reasonable
> length. --checksum-seed should be sufficient.
I submitted a patch against 2.5.6pre1 last January for --checksum-see
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:56:00PM -0800, Craig Barratt wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 09:14:06AM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote:
>
> > I got the go-ahead from the client on my --link-by-hash proposal, and
> > the seed is making the hash unstable. I can't figure out why the seed
> > is there so I
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 09:14:06AM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote:
> I got the go-ahead from the client on my --link-by-hash proposal, and
> the seed is making the hash unstable. I can't figure out why the seed
> is there so I don't know whether to cirumvent it in my particular case
> or calculate
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 09:14:06AM -0500, Jason M. Felice wrote:
> I got the go-ahead from the client on my --link-by-hash proposal, and
> the seed is making the hash unstable. I can't figure out why the seed
> is there so I don't know whether to cirumvent it in my particular case
> or calculate a
