On 20/03/2017 16:21, Jason Hennessey wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
Linus Torvalds writes ("Re: RFC: Another proposed hash function transition plan"): > > Of course, having written that, I now realize how it would cause
problems for the usual shit-for-brains case-insensitive
filesystems. > > So I guess base64 encoding doesn't work well for that
reason.
Given that the idea was to encode the new hash in base64 or base85, we
*are* talking about an encoding. In that respect, yes, it can be whatever
encoding we like, and Linus just made a good point (with unnecessary foul
language) of explaining why base64/base85 is not that encoding.
Since the hash format is switching anyway, how about using base32
instead of hex?
Still get a 20% space savings over hex (minus a little for padding), and
it's guaranteed to be a single case.
Jason
If base32 is being considered, I'd suggest the "base32hex" variant,
which uses the same amount of space.