On Fri, 24 Feb 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
*1* In the above toy example, length being 40 vs 64 is used as a sign between SHA-1 and the new hash, and careful readers may wonder if we should use sha-3,20769079d22... or something like that that more explicity identifies what hash is used, so that we can pick a hash whose length is 64 when we transition again. I personally do not think such a prefix is necessary during the first transition; we will likely to adopt a new hash again, and at that point that third one can have a prefix to differenciate it from the second one.
as the saying goes "in computer science the interesting numbers are 0, 1, and many", does it really simplify things much to support 2 hashes vs supporting more so that this issue doesn't have to be revisited? (other than selecting new hashes over time)
David Lang