Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx>: >> Currently Git makes use of the fact that SHA-1 and SHA-256 identifiers >> are of different lengths to distinguish them (see section "Meaning of >> signatures") in Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt > > That's the obvious hack. As a future-proofing issue, though, I think > it would be unwise to count on all future hashes being of distinguishable > lengths. We're not counting on that. As discussed in that section, future hashes can change the format. [...] >> All right. Looks sensible on first glance. > > I am very relieved to hear that. My view of git is outside-in; I was quite > worried I might have missed some crucial issue. Honestly, I do think you have missed some fundamental issues. https://public-inbox.org/git/ab3222ab-9121-9534-1472-fac790bf08a4@xxxxxxxxx/ discusses this further. Regards, Jonathan
