Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx>: > > I think it's a weakness, though, that most of it is written as though it > > assumes only one hash transition will be necessary. (This is me thinking > > on long timescales again.) > > Hm, can you point to what part of the doc suggested that? Best to make > the text clearer, to avoid confusing the next person. I will reread it with an editorial eye and try to come up with concrete suggestions, perhaps a patch. My relative ignorance should actually be helpful here. > > The same technique (probably the > > same code!) could be used to map the otherwise uninterpreted > > commit-IDs I'm proposing to lookup keys. > > No, since Git relies on commit IDs for integrity checking. The hash > function transition described in that document relies on > round-tripping ability for the duration of the transition. I do not quite understand this comment yet. But I don't think it matters that I don't, and I will by the time I write any code. I expect the worst case is that the separated IDs require a different lookup table from the hashes, but will resolve at the same speed. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
