From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <email@example.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <firstname.lastname@example.org>
"brian m. carlson" <email@example.com>,
Subject: Re: Is the sha256 object format experimental or not?
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 10:49:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
On Fri, May 14 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> email@example.com writes:
>> I think Git should externalize the calculation of object digests just
>> like it externalizes the calcualtion of object digital signatures.
> The hashing algorithms used to generate object names has
> requirements fundamentally different from that of digital
> signatures. I strongly suspect that that fact would change the
> equation when you rethink what you said above.
> We can "upgrade" digital signature algorithms fairly easily---nobody
> would complain if you suddenly choose different signing algorithm
> over a blob of data, as long as all project participants are aware
> (and self-describing datastream helps here) and are capable of
> grokking the new algorithm we are adopting. But because object
> names are used by one object to refer to another, and most
> importantly, we do not want a single object to have multiple names,
> we cannot afford to introduce a new hashing algorithm every time we
> feel like it. In other words, diversity of object naming algorithms
> is to be avoided as much as possible, while diversity of signature
> algorithms is naturally expected.
I agree insofar that I don't see a good reason for us to support some
plethora of hash algorithms, but I wouldn't have objections to adding
more if people find them useful for some reason. See e.g.  for an
But I really don't see how anything you've said would present a
technical hurdle once we have SHA-1<->SHA-256 interop in a good enough
state. At that point we'll support re-hashing on arrival of content
hashed with algorithm X into Y, with a local lookup table between X<=>Y.
So if somebody wants to maintain content hashed with algorithm Z locally
we should easily be able to support that. The "diversity of naming"
won't matter past that local repository, any mention of Z will be
translated to X or Y on fetch/push.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-14 8:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-08 2:22 Preserving the ability to have both SHA1 and SHA256 signatures dwh
2021-05-08 6:39 ` Christian Couder
2021-05-08 6:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-08 8:03 ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-08 10:11 ` Stefan Moch
2021-05-08 11:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-09 0:19 ` brian m. carlson
2021-05-10 12:22 ` Is the sha256 object format experimental or not? Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-10 22:42 ` brian m. carlson
2021-05-13 20:29 ` dwh
2021-05-13 20:49 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-05-13 23:47 ` dwh
2021-05-14 13:45 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-05-14 17:39 ` dwh
2021-05-13 21:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-13 23:26 ` dwh
2021-05-14 8:49 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [this message]
2021-05-14 18:10 ` dwh
2021-05-18 5:32 ` Jonathan Nieder
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).