mirrors/git-annex
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages 1 Wiki Activity Actions

comment

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Joey Hess 2023-12-01 14:42:55 -04:00
parent ce9f909ee9
commit 5c4ce1353e
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: DB12DB0FF05F8F38
4 changed files with 86 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

22
doc/todo/alternate_keys_for_same_content/comment_10_22ff867952875856b20339a8829c5944._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="joey"
subject="""Re: simpler proposal"""
date="2023-12-01T18:00:20Z"
content="""
About the idea of recording a checksum of the content of a URL or WORM key,
without migrating to a SHA key, that does seem worth considering. (And
maybe was the original idea of this todo really..)
If that were implemented, it would be necessary for more than one checksum
to be able to be recorded for a given URL key. Because different
clones might get different content from the URL and each add its checksum.
So, this would not be as strong an assurance as using a SHA key that you're
referring to a specific peice of data. It would be useful to protect
against bit rot, but not as a way to pin a file to a particular version.
Which is often something one does want to do in a git repository!
I do think that implementing that would be a lot simpler. And it would
only affect performance when verifying the content of URL or WORM keys,
when it would need to look up the checksum in the git-annex branch.
"""]]

7
doc/todo/alternate_keys_for_same_content/comment_11_3323eff3d94d366595bf2b7e78c01dce._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="joey"
subject="""comment 11"""
date="2023-12-01T18:41:30Z"
content="""
See [[distributed_migration]]...
"""]]