On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:20:03PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > Since this is going to have to happen anyway > > The SHA-1 <-> SHA-256 transition is planned to happen, but there's some > strong opinions that this should be *only* for munging the content for > hashing, not adding new stuff while we're at it (even if optional). See > : https://public-inbox.org/git/87ftyyedqd.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ One reason for this is that the transition plan calls for being able to convert between the sha1 and sha256 representations losslessly (which makes interoperability possible and avoids a flag day). So even if the sha256 format understood floating-point timestamps in the committer header, we'd have to have some way of representing that same information in the sha1 format. Which implies putting it into a new header, as you described below. And if it's in a new header in sha1, then is there any real advantage in having it somewhere else in the sha256 version? I dunno. Maybe a little, as eventually all of the sha1 formats would die off, after everybody has transitioned. -Peff
