On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 09:59:21PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > By that reasoning all the preparatory work for switching to SHA-256 and > making the references in the Git code base less tied to SHA-1 would be > irrelevant now, "because we can cross that bridge when we reach it". > > You are suggesting to incur technical debt here. Let's be smarter about > this. We do not *have* to incur said technical debt. Nothing (except > mental laziness) makes use do that. > > Instead, we can make our load "when we reach that bridge" a lot lighter > by already doing the right thing. > > BTW I totally disagree that the skip list is bound to be SHA-1. It is > bound to be a list of object names, that's what its purpose is, and just > because we happen to not yet support other hash algorithms but SHA-1 does > not mean that the skip list is fixed to SHA-1. It'll always be whatever > hash algorithm is used in the current repository. Yeah, I agree with this. In particular, the code has already been modified to use "struct object_id" and parse_oid_hex(). So it is not even like somebody will have to come through later and fix the implementation here, and while they're at it change the "SHA-1" in the message. It has literally already been fixed, and is just waiting on parse_oid_hex() to learn about the new hashes behind the scenes. IMHO the conversion to object_id probably would have been the time to fix that message so we would not even have to be revisiting the discussion now. But that conversion was such a monumental pain it is hard to fault the authors for not picking up every scrap at that moment. ;) That is no excuse not to do it now, though. -Peff
