On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Michael Witten wrote: > > And the term is already in use for this particular case, > > and it doesn't mean anything else at all (since, of course, the crypto > > thing is "SHA-1", not "sha1"), and it's short (which is important for > > making it easy to look at usage help). > > What happens when SHA-1 is shown to be broken or there is a better > alternative? Then we'll see "sha1 for historical reasons"... bleh! Why do you think SHA-1 has anything to do with it? Git's sha1s could just as easily be 160 bits of a SHA-256 hash and there wouldn't be any user-visible difference. The term doesn't imply any particular significant connection to a particular algorithm. It could be like "pencil lead", which has never been made of lead, but is called that for no particularly important reason. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html