On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 12:19 +0000, ronny wrote:
> i narrowed it down to compiled versus uncompiled
>
> the c speedups don't "break",
Ronny and I have discussed this a bit on IRC, but I thought I should
just mention it here as well so the bug reports has all data.
The C speedups don't have this assertion at the moment but they probably
should. The assertion is present because we would like to make sure that
when a Tree object is parsed by Dulwich that serializing it again will
result in the exact same text - with the same SHA1.
At the moment we don't handle leading zeroes so when reserializing a
tree a different text with a different SHA1 is generated.
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 12:19 +0000, ronny wrote:
> i narrowed it down to compiled versus uncompiled
>
> the c speedups don't "break",
Ronny and I have discussed this a bit on IRC, but I thought I should
just mention it here as well so the bug reports has all data.
The C speedups don't have this assertion at the moment but they probably
should. The assertion is present because we would like to make sure that
when a Tree object is parsed by Dulwich that serializing it again will
result in the exact same text - with the same SHA1.
At the moment we don't handle leading zeroes so when reserializing a
tree a different text with a different SHA1 is generated.
Cheers,
Jelmer