archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <>
To: "brian m. carlson" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Hashed mailmap support
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 21:40:19 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 08:48:14PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 01:05:38AM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > Note that this is not perfect, because a user can simply look up all the
> > hashed values and find out the old values.  However, for projects which
> > wish to adopt the feature, it can be somewhat effective to hash all
> > existing mailmap entries and include some no-op entries from other
> > contributors as well, so as to make this process less convenient.
> I remain unconvinced of the value of any noop entries. Ultimately it's
> easy to invert a one-way hash that comes from a small known set of
> inputs. And that's true whether there are extra noops or not.
> The interesting argument IMHO is that somebody has to _bother_ to invert
> the hash. So it means that the old and new identities do not show up
> next to each other in a file indexed by search engines, etc. That drops
> the low-hanging fruit.
> And from that argument, I think the obvious question becomes: is it
> worth using a real one-way function, as opposed to just obscuring the
> raw bytes (which Ævar went into in more detail). I don't have a strong
> opinion either way (the obvious one in favor is that it's less expensive
> to do so; and something like "git log" will have to either compute a lot
> of these hashes, or cache the hash computations internally).
> I think somebody also mentioned that there's value in the social
> signaling here, and I agree with that. But that is true even for a
> reversible encoding, I think.

After re-reading what I wrote, I just wanted to make clear: overall the
feature makes sense to me. I am questioning only the argument for it,
and whether a one-way hash is the right tradeoff there.


  reply	other threads:[~2020-12-15  2:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-13  1:05 [PATCH 0/1] Hashed mailmap support brian m. carlson
2020-12-13  1:05 ` [PATCH 1/1] mailmap: support hashed entries in mailmaps brian m. carlson
2020-12-13  9:34   ` Johannes Sixt
2020-12-13  9:45     ` Johannes Sixt
2020-12-13 20:38       ` brian m. carlson
2020-12-14  0:09   ` Junio C Hamano
2020-12-16  0:50     ` brian m. carlson
2020-12-14 11:54   ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2020-12-15 11:13   ` Phillip Wood
2020-12-15  1:48 ` [PATCH 0/1] Hashed mailmap support Jeff King
2020-12-15  2:40   ` Jeff King [this message]
2020-12-15 11:15   ` Phillip Wood
2020-12-18  2:29   ` brian m. carlson
2020-12-18  5:56     ` Jeff King

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:

* 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).