Which testament to choose?

[James Westby]

On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 13:24 -0600, John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> IIRC, the normal Testament verifies that the tree shape and contents are
> valid (and it is what gets gpg-signed). StrictTestament also asserts the
> "last-modified" values for files, and I think executable bit?
> 
> last-modified wasn't in the original testament because it wasn't
> considered to be vital. Also, in the presence of ghosts, etc, it may change.
> 
> I would probably go with a normal Testament, except for if the
> executable bit isn't included.

Thanks John,

The StrictTestament does add the executable bits.

> And short is just the sha1 hash of the long form, so it should be fine.
> Unless you want to be able to *compare* to see what is different.

That's what I thought. Being able to compare might be nice, as there
may only be one copy of the branches, I'm not sure whether we will
always have a second. However, I think I will go with the short form.

Thanks,

James