On 2016-08-29 13:42, Davis Herring wrote:
>> Same concern here, for remote files. For large remote files I would
>> prefer a cksum call, if possible. But maybe we shall profile this, first.
> 
> A very basic "checksum" would be to just use the file's size.  We could easily implement that and catch most modifications without any real I/O.

Does this work? Many changes don't affect file size, we we would still want to prompt the user, right?