On 2 February 2011 03:09, Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> wrote:
> is this still an issue with chk repositories?
I think this is now basically safe. Perhaps we should make sure that
any attempt to get an inventory by revision-id always first gets the
relevant revision, then from that gets the inventory base SHA1. I
don't think that is true at the moment. Are other changes needed?
On 2 February 2011 03:09, Jelmer Vernooij <email address hidden> wrote:
> is this still an issue with chk repositories?
I think this is now basically safe. Perhaps we should make sure that
any attempt to get an inventory by revision-id always first gets the
relevant revision, then from that gets the inventory base SHA1. I
don't think that is true at the moment. Are other changes needed?