Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin
> <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 4) we still have the problem that there is no cryptography expert among
>> those who in the Git project are listened to
>
> I can assure you that Jonathan listened to crypto experts. It just did not
> happen on the mailing list, which is sad regarding openness and transparency.

In the interest of openness and transparency, perhaps a blue doc
should be put together to outline and document the hash function that
succeeds SHA1, and the rationales for doing so? It would, ideally,
cite (preferably by including, and not just linking to) any
discussions with crypto experts that have chimed in off-list (given
said experts' consent for any such communication to be publicized,
naturally).

If I'm not mistaken, the only such doc behind the transition right now
is the Git hash function transition document, which covers the
technical barriers to replacing SHA1, but not why we might choose X to
replace SHA1.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]