On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 22:23, brian m. carlson <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2020-08-14 at 17:28:27, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > Document that in SHA-1 repositories, we use SHA-1 for "want"s and > > > "have"s, and in SHA-256 repositories, we use SHA-256. > > > > Ehh, doesn't this directly contradict the transition plan of "on the > > wire everything will use SHA-1 version for now?" Yes, the transition plan would probably need updating there. I'm just trying to document what we have. > SHA-256 repositories interoperate currently using SHA-256 object IDs. > It was originally intended that we wouldn't update the protocol, but > that leads to much of the testsuite failing since it's impossible to > move objects from one place to another. > > If we wanted to be more pedantically correct and optimize for the > future, we could say that the values use the format negotiated by the > "object-format" protocol extension and SHA-1 otherwise. Hmm, I didn't think of that. Would we ever regret that we've painted such a "big" picture and wish to refine it somehow? Compared to admittedly being fairly narrow as I am here, then loosen things later. I'll think about it, but I think I could go either way. Martin
