Merge branch 'master' of ssh://git-annex.branchable.com

3 files changed, 44 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/doc/bugs/Possible_data-loss_if_WORM_keys_do_not_encode_relative_paths/comment_2_e8f011263bfa4c3c3d04494ea1c88523._comment b/doc/bugs/Possible_data-loss_if_WORM_keys_do_not_encode_relative_paths/comment_2_e8f011263bfa4c3c3d04494ea1c88523._comment
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..90684d96c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/bugs/Possible_data-loss_if_WORM_keys_do_not_encode_relative_paths/comment_2_e8f011263bfa4c3c3d04494ea1c88523._comment
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="zardoz"
+ ip="78.48.163.229"
+ subject="comment 2"
+ date="2014-08-16T11:42:22Z"
+ content="""
+Hm, I don’t quite follow the remark on having everything in a single
+directory. Rather than saying that the relative path adds additional
+entropy, what I was aiming at is the file-system cannot have two
+alternate versions of one file name at the same path with the same
+mtime, and that’s why it occurred to me that encoding both path and
+mtime within the key doesn’t just increase the odds, but effectively
+_guarantees_ that there won’t be any collisions. Does this seem to
+hold up, or am I missing something? (Of course one can fudge the
+mtimes, but that’s something under the user’s control.)
+
+While a large repo with many files very likely has lots of distinct
+files with identical basename, mtime (in s.) and size, all these files
+with the same mtime must necessarily be located at different paths.
+
+"""]]
diff --git a/doc/bugs/Possible_data-loss_if_WORM_keys_do_not_encode_relative_paths/comment_3_bda1e0d3569a6becf374d0e820219469._comment b/doc/bugs/Possible_data-loss_if_WORM_keys_do_not_encode_relative_paths/comment_3_bda1e0d3569a6becf374d0e820219469._comment
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..54fe869c5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/bugs/Possible_data-loss_if_WORM_keys_do_not_encode_relative_paths/comment_3_bda1e0d3569a6becf374d0e820219469._comment
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="zardoz"
+ ip="78.48.163.229"
+ subject="comment 3"
+ date="2014-08-16T13:58:28Z"
+ content="""
+One scenario where the above guarantee would be violated is when one
+moves a new file of identical size, basename, and mtime, into a path
+where a key-colliding file has been kept before. Still, I’d consider
+this a scenario one could reasonably control for (especially in the
+archive usecase); plus, even without manual control such a
+move-induced collision would be much more unlikely than a collision of
+basenames only.
+
+"""]]
diff --git a/doc/devblog/day_216__various_minor_bugs/comment_3_05177e2ed414d22711dcec57a614e38c._comment b/doc/devblog/day_216__various_minor_bugs/comment_3_05177e2ed414d22711dcec57a614e38c._comment
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..4b3f0248a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/devblog/day_216__various_minor_bugs/comment_3_05177e2ed414d22711dcec57a614e38c._comment
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+[[!comment format=mdwn
+ username="EskildHustvedt"
+ ip="80.202.103.55"
+ subject="comment 3"
+ date="2014-08-16T15:22:35Z"
+ content="""
+Ah, well then, that sounds a lot more reasonable. Though legal, I have yet to hear of a sane reason for using newlines in filenames.
+"""]]