On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 05:57:34PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:28:20AM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>
> > Yes, I guess this is the detail I was going to abandon. =)
> >
> > I viewed the fact that the top-level hash was dependent on the e
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:28:20AM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
Hi,
> A merkle-tree (which I think you initially pointed me at) makes the hash
> of the internal nodes be a hash of the chunk's hashes; ie not a straight
> content hash. This is roughly what my current implementation does, but
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 10:30:15AM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
Hi,
your code looks pretty cool. thank you!
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> >The other thing I don't like is the use of a sha1
> >for a complete file. Switching to some kind of hash
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 10:11:10PM +1000, Jon Seymour wrote:
> On 4/20/05, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I converted my git archives (kernel and git itself) to do the SHA1 hash
> > _before_ the compression phase.
> >
>
> Linus,
>
> Am I correct to understand that with
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 07:37:02PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 11:11:00AM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> > The rsync approach does not use fixed chunk boundaries; this is necessary
> > to ensure good storage reuse for the expected case (ie; ins
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 11:11:00AM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> >The right thing (TM) is to switch from SHA1 of compressed
> >content for the complete monolithic file to a merkle hash tree
> >of the uncompressed content.
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:11:43PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> >
> > So I guess I'll have to implement this and find out, won't I? =)
>
> The best way to shup somebody up is always to just do it, and say "hey, I
> told you so". It's hard to arg
7 matches
Mail list logo
