Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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.) I think we should have either a new sha256 capability or a more generic hash-algo capability whose value can be set to sha256. Neither the connection initiators or the acceptors should talk in sha256 until both ends agreed to do so. I do not think of any other way to make sure hosting sites to serve projects that migrate at different pace. Per project, you might be able to have a flag day. You cannot have a flag day that spans the world.
