Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 17 2019, Barret Rhoden wrote:
>
>> - die("Could not open skip list: %s", path);
>> [...]
>> + die("Could not open skip list: %s", path);
>
> You're just moving this around, but now that this has two uses let's say
> "Could not open SHA-1 list; %s" or something like that.
>
>> + die("Invalid SHA-1: %s", sb.buf);
>
> Unlike Johannes I think it's fine to leave this. This file-format is
> SHA-1 only now. We can cross the bridge of making it (and others)
> SHA-256 somehow when we come to that, whether that'll be allowing
> variable width or a different file.
I tend to agree. The Documentation/glossary-contents.txt makes it
clear that "object name" is the most formal term to use here, with
synonyms like "object identifier" and much less formal "hash". For
now, "SHA-1" is good enough, even though "object name" is acceptable
if we really want to future-proof. But I would suspect that people
would colloquially keep saying Shaah-one even when we start using
different hash function(s), so such a future-proofing may not be
worth it ;-)
