On 2022-04-03 at 08:42:58, Eric Wong wrote: > Hey all, just wondering if it's something I should prioritize > adding support for in some git-using project I hack on... > > Of course, I'm not dropping SHA-1 support. So I'm wondering if > I should wait for (or hack on :P) git to handle both SHA-256 and > SHA-1 in one process; or if it's something I'd be better off > managing via multiple (git cat-file --batch) processes. No OIDs > are abbreviated, so it's just 20/40 vs 32/64. Git can already use one binary to handle SHA-1 and SHA-256 repositories and has been able to since Git 2.29 (although 2.30 has some fixes you should use). It just doesn't provide interop at this point, and I'm only working on it as I find time, so I wouldn't hold your breath for it. I have some indefinite plans to improve the support for SHA-1/SHA-256 interop in the future, as well as port SHA-256 support to libgit2, but those are dependent on some things which are not certain (but very likely) to occur. I strongly encourage folks to add SHA-256 repository support to tooling since it's likely going to become more popular in the future. I have some local SHA-256 repositories on my systems and they appear to work fine. -- brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them) Toronto, Ontario, CA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
