On 2021-05-11 at 23:48:51, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "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. 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
