Hi, Stefan Beller wrote: > From: Jonathan Nieder <jrn@xxxxxxxxxx> I go by jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx upstream. :) > This is "RFC v3: Another proposed hash function transition plan" from > the git mailing list. > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> I hadn't signed-off on this version, but it's not a big deal. [...] > --- > > This takes the original Google Doc[1] and adds it to our history, > such that the discussion can be on on list and in the commit messages. > > * replaced SHA3-256 with NEWHASH, sha3 with newhash > * added section 'Implementation plan' > * added section 'Future work' > * added section 'Agreed-upon criteria for selecting NewHash' Thanks for sending this out. I had let it stall too long. As a tiny nit, I think NewHash is easier to read than NEWHASH. Not a big deal. More importantly, we need some text describing it and saying it's a placeholder. The implementation plan included here is out of date. It comes from an email where I was answering a question about what people can do to make progress, before this design had been agreed on. In the context of this design there are other steps we'd want to describe (having to do with implementing the translation table, etc). I also planned to add a description of the translation table based on what was discussed previously in this thread. Jonathan
