Andy Parkins <andyparkins@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I'm working on bringing my hash width literals patch up to
> date now that 1.5.0 has passed.
I do not want to risk discouraging public discussion on this
topic, but I am not sure if this is really worth it.
It is not like if/when we find SHA-1 is inadequate we would just
switch to SHA-256 and redefine HASH_BYTES from 20 to 32 and be
done with it. With the need for backward compatibility, we
would probably end up changing "unsigned char sha1[20]" to
something that allows us to tell which hash function's result we
are talking about, like:
struct {
enum { SHA_1, SHA_256 } type;
union {
unsigned char sha1[20];
unsigned char sha256[32];
} u;
};
-
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