"brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
