Re: [PATCH 2/2] doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Cc: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org,
	"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Edward Thomson" <ethomson@edwardthomson.com>,
	"brian m . carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>,
	"Johannes Schindelin" <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
	demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com>, "Adam Langley" <agl@google.com>,
	keccak@noekeon.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2018 14:32:50 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqin53t30d.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180725172537.GA176329@aiede.svl.corp.google.com> (Jonathan Nieder's message of "Wed, 25 Jul 2018 10:25:37 -0700")

Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:

> Regardless of how we spell it in prose, I think `sha256` as an
> identifier in configuration is the spelling people will expect.  For
> example, gpg ("gpg --version") calls it SHA256.

OK.

> For what it's worth, I would be in favor of modifying the section
> more heavily.  For example:
> ...
> Changes:
>
> - retitled since the hash function has already been selected
> - added some notes about sha1dc
> - when discussing wide implementation availability, mentioned
>   CommonCrypto too, as an example of a non-OpenSSL library that the
>   libgit2 authors care about
> - named which function is chosen
>
> We could put the runners up in the "alternatives considered" section,
> but I don't think there's much to say about them here so I wouldn't.

All interesting ideas and good suggestions.  I'll leave 2/2 in the
mail archive and take only 1/2 for now.  I'd expect the final
version, not too soon after mulling over the suggestions raised
here, but not in too distant future to prevent us from forgetting
;-)

Thanks.