"brian m. carlson" [off-list ref] writes:
This seems fine as a solution for now. I tried to keep the transport
code mostly independent of the local repository settings, but in this
case because the HTTP walker mucks around with the internals of the
local pack files, I don't think we can avoid this without some major
restructuring, which I'm not interested in sitting down and writing this
evening.
I'll clean this up in a nicer way once I get interop working. Thanks
for sending a patch for this.
Thanks, both.
As an "experimental" stuff, I do not think SHA256 "fix" is as urgent
as (or of higher priority than) other stuff, like reducing
inter-developer stepping-on-others-toes, so I'll refrain from
picking Eric's patch up myself and let you include/handle it later.
On 2021-05-11 at 23:48:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
"brian m. carlson" [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
This seems fine as a solution for now. I tried to keep the transport
code mostly independent of the local repository settings, but in this
case because the HTTP walker mucks around with the internals of the
local pack files, I don't think we can avoid this without some major
restructuring, which I'm not interested in sitting down and writing this
evening.
I'll clean this up in a nicer way once I get interop working. Thanks
for sending a patch for this.
Thanks, both.
As an "experimental" stuff, I do not think SHA256 "fix" is as urgent
as (or of higher priority than) other stuff, like reducing
inter-developer stepping-on-others-toes, so I'll refrain from
picking Eric's patch up myself and let you include/handle it later.
No, please do pick up the patch. The time frame for which I'm looking
at fixing this is several months out and I think some solution is best
adopted now. Since Eric has sent a patch that works, I think it's best
to fix the immediate problem and let me clean up things later on.
--
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Houston, Texas, US