On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In particular, make it clear that they make copies of the sha1
> arguments.
A couple weeks ago we had plans on getting rid of SHA1 in
"the near future" IIRC. Would it make sense to not go down
the SHA1 road further and document this in a more abstract way?
s/SHA1/object name/
essentially, but I guess one of Brians future series' may pick this
up as well.
I am just hesitant to introduce more sha1-ism at this point.
Thanks,
Stefan