Matt Madia <mattmadia@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > wrote: > > First, why would we need an MD5 hash of attachments? While I > > wouldn't > > mind of someone does the extra work to provide, I would never check > > it > > unless I would think the file got corrupted, and if it got > > corrupted, > > it shouldn't be hard to find out either way, and notice the > > provider of > > the file. > I figured that if a file is larger than what Trac allows, >400kb > iirc, > then it'd be nice to make sure that it was uploaded (and downloaded) > properly. Is this wording more appropriate ? > > "While not necessary, a md5sum checksum of the file could be > included. > This is mostly useful for binary attachments. It will allow another > person to verify that the downloaded file matches the one that was > uploaded." Maybe something like: 'Be prepared to generate an MD5 checksum (using "md5sum") in case an attachment is under the suspicion of being corrupted.' > > The second thing is a bit strange wording/message of the first > > point, > > or should that be funny? :-) > Heh, a little dry humor perhaps :) > > Slightly re-worded: > "If a respected project contributor complains about your behavior on > this bug tracker, then your account may be disabled. If you do not > like this possibility, then become a respected project contributor. > This implies abiding by this rule." I think I would just remove the last two sentences (starting with "If you..."). At least I don't see a a necessary connection between the two things. The only thing to prevent being thrown out is to behave, not become a respected contributor; to me it still sounds like contributors don't need to behave (the last sentence doesn't manage to undo that IMO). Bye, Axel. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- haiku-web@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Haiku Web & Developer Support Discussion List