Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> This document is still in flux but I thought it best to send it out >>> early to start getting feedback. >> >> This actually looks very reasonable if you can implement it cleanly >> enough. > > Thanks for the kind words on what had quite a few flaws still. Here's > a new draft. I think the next version will be a patch against > Documentation/technical/. Can we reboot the discussion and advance this to v4 state? > As before, comments welcome, both here and inline at > > https://goo.gl/gh2Mzc I think what you have over there looks pretty-much ready as the final outline. One thing I still do not know how I feel about after re-reading the thread, and I didn't find the above doc, is Linus's suggestion to use the objects themselves as NewHash-to-SHA-1 mapper [*1*]. It does not help the reverse mapping that is needed while pushing things out (the SHA-1 receiver tells us what they have in terms of SHA-1 names; we need to figure out where we stop sending based on that). While it does help maintaining itself (while constructing SHA3-content, we'd be required to find out its SHA1 name but the SHA3 objects that we refer to all know their SHA-1 names), if it is not useful otherwise, then that does not count as a plus. Also having to bake corresponding SHA-1 name in the object would mean mistakes can easily propagate and cannot be corrected without rewriting the history, which would be a huge downside. So perhaps we are better off without it, I guess. [Reference] *1* <CA+55aFxj7Vtwac64RfAz_u=U4tob4Xg+2pDBDFNpJdmgaTCmxA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
