From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
To: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Is the sha256 object format experimental or not?
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 14:22:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87lf8mu642.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YJcqqYsOerijsxRQ@camp.crustytoothpaste.net>
On Sun, May 09 2021, brian m. carlson wrote:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On 2021-05-08 at 02:22:25, dwh@linuxprogrammer.org wrote:
>> Hi Everybody,
>>
>> I was reading through the
>> Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt doc and realized
>> that the plan is to support allowing BOTH SHA1 and SHA256 signatures to
>> exist in a single object:
>>
>> > Signed Commits
>> > 1. using SHA-1 only, as in existing signed commit objects
>> > 2. using both SHA-1 and SHA-256, by using both gpgsig-sha256 and gpgsig
>> > fields.
>> > 3. using only SHA-256, by only using the gpgsig-sha256 field.
>> >
>> > Signed Tags
>> > 1. using SHA-1 only, as in existing signed tag objects
>> > 2. using both SHA-1 and SHA-256, by using gpgsig-sha256 and an in-body
>> > signature.
>> > 3. using only SHA-256, by only using the gpgsig-sha256 field.
>
> Yes, this is the case. We have tests for this case.
>
>> The design that I'm working on only supports a single signature that
>> uses a combination of fields: one 'signtype', zero or more 'signoption'
>> and one 'sign' in objects. I am thinking that the best thing to do is
>> replace the gpgsig-sha256 fields in objects and allow old gpgsig (commits)
>> and in-body (tags) signatures to co-exist along side to give the same
>> functionality.
>
> You can't do that. SHA-256 repositories already exist and that would
> break compatibility.
From memory this is at least the second time you've brought up this
point on-list.
My feeling is that almost nobody's using sha256 currently, and we have a
very prominent ALL CAPS warning saying the format is experimental and
may change, see ff233d8dda1 (Documentation: mark
`--object-format=sha256` as experimental, 2020-08-16).
I agree with the docs as they stand, and don't think we should hold back
on changing the object format for sha256 in general if there's a
compelling reason to do so.
Whether this suggested change has a compelling reason is another matter
(I haven't reviewed it).
But it seems to me that if the main person pushing the sha256 effort
disagrees with the content of
Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt, we'd be better off at this
point discussing a patch to change the wording there to something to the
effect that we consider the format set in stone at this point.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-10 12:52 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 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [this message]
2021-05-10 22:42 ` Is the sha256 object format experimental or not? 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
2021-05-14 18:10 ` dwh
2021-05-18 5:32 ` Jonathan Nieder
Reply instructions:
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87lf8mu642.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com \
--to=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sandals@crustytoothpaste.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* 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).