Two of our extensions contain "sha1" in their names, but that's historical. The "want"s will take object names that are not necessarily SHA-1s. Make this clear, but also make it clear how there's still just one correct hash algo: These extensions don't somehow make the "want"s take object names derived using *any* hash algorithm. Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt | 11 +++++++---- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt b/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt index 36ccd14f97..47f1b30090 100644 --- a/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt +++ b/Documentation/technical/protocol-capabilities.txt @@ -324,15 +324,18 @@ allow-tip-sha1-in-want ---------------------- If the upload-pack server advertises this capability, fetch-pack may -send "want" lines with SHA-1s that exist at the server but are not -advertised by upload-pack. +send "want" lines with object names that exist at the server but are not +advertised by upload-pack. (Note that the name of the capability +contains "sha1", but that it's more general than that: in SHA-1 +repositories, the "want" lines provide SHA-1 values, but in SHA-256 +repositories, they provide SHA-256 values.) allow-reachable-sha1-in-want ---------------------------- If the upload-pack server advertises this capability, fetch-pack may -send "want" lines with SHA-1s that exist at the server but are not -advertised by upload-pack. +send "want" lines with object names that exist at the server but are not +advertised by upload-pack. (Same remark about "sha1" as above.) push-cert=<nonce> ----------------- -- 2.28.0.277.g9b3c35fffd
