Hi Ævar, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > It occurred to me recently that once we have such a layer it could be > (ab)used with some relatively minor changes to do any arbitrary > local-to-remote object content translation, unless I've missed something > (but I just re-read hash-function-transition.txt now...). > > E.g. having a SHA-1 (or NewHash) local repo, but interfacing with a > remote server so that you upload a GPG encrypted version of all your > blobs, and have your trees reference those blobs. Interesting! To be clear, this would only work with deterministic encryption. Normal GPG encryption would not have the round-tripping properties required by the design. If I understand correctly, it also requires both sides of the connection to have access to the encryption key. Otherwise they cannot perform ordinary operations like revision walks. So I'm not seeing a huge advantage over ordinary transport-layer encryption. That said, it's an interesting idea --- thanks for that. I'm changing the subject line since otherwise there's no way I'll find this again. :) Jonathan
