On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 08:26:05PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote: > On 8 May 2018 at 01:30, brian m. carlson <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 12:10:39PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote: > >> Do we actually need more SHA-1-related prereqs, at least long-term, in > >> which case we would want to find a more specific name for this one now? > >> Is this SHA1_STORAGE, or some much better name than that? > > > > We may. The transition plan anticipates several states: > > "We may" as in, "we may need more SHA1-FOO prereqs later", or "we may > want this to be SHA1-BAR"? As in, we may need additional prerequisites. > I do not feel entirely relaxed about a reasoning such as "this prereq > will soon go away again, so we do not need to think too much about its > name and meaning" (heavily paraphrased and possibly a bit pointed, but > hopefully not too dishonest). I think "SHA1" is short and reasonable considering that it's basically stating, "This test depends on Git using SHA-1." That's all we're stating here. I agree that the expected lifetime of the code should not impact its design or naming in this case. As someone who does maintenance for a living, I'm all too aware that code lives far longer than its expected lifetime. > I guess a counter-argument might be "sure, if only we knew which > SHA1-FOOs we will need. Only time and experience will tell." You've > certainly spent way more brain-cycles on this than I have, and most > likely more than anyone else on this list. > > Maybe we want to document the transition-ness of this in the code and/or > the commit message. Not only "transition" in the sense of the big > transition, but in the sense of "this will probably go away long before > the transition is completed." Sure. I can fix this up in a reroll. -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
