Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > It needing to be bidirectional is a very good point, and I think that > makes my suggestion a non-starter. Thanks. Yes, it is a bit sad that we need to carry the mistakes forward while moving to the new hash, but bidi convertibility is a must for the transition to work smoothly, I think. Thanks for a good discussion. FWIW, on the original issue that brought it up, I think using "object name" from the glossary to move away from saying "SHA-1" would be good.
