On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 12:20:14AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > Object format
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > The content as a byte sequence of a tag, commit, or tree object named
> > -by sha1 and newhash differ because an object named by newhash-name refers to
> > +by sha1 and sha256 differ because an object named by sha256-name refers to
>
> Not about this patch: this should say SHA-1 and SHA-256, I think.
> Leaving it as is in this patch as you did is the right thing.
>
> [...]
> > @@ -255,10 +252,10 @@ network byte order):
> > up to and not including the table of CRC32 values.
> > - Zero or more NUL bytes.
> > - The trailer consists of the following:
> > - - A copy of the 20-byte NewHash checksum at the end of the
> > + - A copy of the 20-byte SHA-256 checksum at the end of the
>
> Not about this patch: a SHA-256 is 32 bytes. Leaving that for a
> separate patch as you did is the right thing, though.
>
> [...]
> > - - 20-byte NewHash checksum of all of the above.
> > + - 20-byte SHA-256 checksum of all of the above.
>
> Likewise.
For the record, my code for these does use 32 bytes. I'm fine with this
being a separate patch, though.
> [...]
> > @@ -351,12 +348,12 @@ the following steps:
> > (This list only contains objects reachable from the "wants". If the
> > pack from the server contained additional extraneous objects, then
> > they will be discarded.)
> > -3. convert to newhash: open a new (newhash) packfile. Read the topologically
> > +3. convert to sha256: open a new (sha256) packfile. Read the topologically
>
> Not about this patch: this one's more murky, since it's talking about
> the object names instead of the hash function. I guess "sha256"
> instead of "SHA-256" for this could be right, but I worry it's going
> to take time for me to figure out the exact distinction. That seems
> like a reason to just call it SHA-256 (but in a separate patch).
My assumption has been that when we are referring to the algorithm,
we'll use SHA-1 and SHA-256, and when we're referring to the input to
Git (in config files or in ^{sha256} notation), we use "sha1" and
"sha256". I see this as analogous to "Git" and "git".
Otherwise, I'm fine with this document as it is.
--
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
