On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 03:42:34PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > As I said, I'm not planning on multiple hash support at first, but it > doesn't appear impossible if we go this route. We might still have to > rewrite objects, but we can verify signatures over the legacy SHA-1 > objects by forcing them into the old-style object format. How hard would it be to make the on-disk format be multihash, even if there is no support for anything other than a single hash, at least for now? That way we won't have to rewrite the objects twice. Personally, so long as the newer versions of the tree are secured, I wouldn't mind if the older commits stayed using SHA1 only. The newer commits are the ones that are most important and security-critical anyway. It seems like the main reason to rewrite all of the objects is to simplify the initial rollout of a newer hash algorithm, no? - Ted -- 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