On April 3, 2022 1:36 PM, brian m. carlson wrote: >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. Our tooling works correctly regardless of the choice of SHA-256, but have been waiting for GitHub et. al., to provide capabilities. I would welcome interoperability. What help do you need? Regards, Randall
