Hi Junio, On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I will say that the pack format will likely require some changes, > > because it assumes ... The reason is that we can't have an > > unambiguous parse of the current objects if two hash algorithms are in > > use.... So when we look at a new hash, we need to provide an > > unambiguous way to know what hash is in use. The two choices are to > > either require all object use the new hash, or to extend the objects > > to include the hash. Until a couple days ago, I had planned to do the > > former. I had not even considered using a multihash approach due to > > the complexity. > > Objects in Git identify themselves, but once you introduce the second > hash function (as opposed to replacing the hash function to a new one), > you would allow people to call the same object by two names. That has > interesting implications. > > [...] So essentially you are saying that the multi-hash approach has too many negative implications, right? At least that is what I understand. Looks more and more like we do need to convert repositories wholesale, and keep a two-way mapping for talking to remote repositories. Would you concur? Ciao, Dscho -- 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