On 5/14/2021 3:53 PM, brian m. carlson wrote: > On 2021-05-14 at 14:36:00, Matheus Tavares wrote:>> >> I've read the hash transition plan, but I'm not confident to say that I >> fully understand it yet, so maybe this patch is not exactly what we need >> here. Mainly, I'm not sure I understand in which cases we will have an >> object_id.algo that is not the_hash_algo. Is it for the early transition >> phases, where we have a SHA-256 repo that accepts user input as SHA-1? > > Yes, that's correct, as well as for interoperability with remotes using > a different hash algorithm. > >> Also, the object_id's copied here at send_one_item() always come from a >> `struct cache_entry`. In this case, can they still have different >> `algo`s or do we expect them to be the_hash_algo? > > No, things in the index should always use the same algorithm.. > > The patch looks fine to me. Chiming in to say I agree that this is a good patch. Thanks, -Stolee
