Adam Majer wrote: > On May 3, 2023 5:44:24 p.m. GMT+02:00, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >Git was designed to make it *impossible* to confuse two commits with similar > >data. > > That was never ever the problem here. But it will be. > >> This is different. But aside, type + size + data are not really much > >> different from just having data in a hash function. > > > >It's completely different. > > How so? Type and size are just about 2 and a dozen bits of data, respectfully. Do you understand how checksums work? Compare these two objects: 1. 0beec7b5ea3f0fdbc95d0dd47f3c5bc275da8a33 2. 6ba62a7c5e3e9a260c5a30adf2756882c02f12a6 Are they a) "not much different", or b) "completely different"? Answer: doesn't matter, they are *different*. Period. > >There are different philosophical views of what "security" means, and it seems > >pretty clear to me that your view does not align with the view of Linus > >Torvalds. > > > I'm not sure why you are name dropping Linus everywhere I don't know if you are aware, but Linus Torvalds is the author of git. He also happens to be the author of the most successful software project in history: Linux. So generally his design choices are considered to be good. > or assuming you know more than anyone here about hash functions. I don't assume such a thing. But I'm pretty certain not many people are aware of the integrity issues VCSs presented circa 2004, that git hashes solved in 2005, because if they did, they could have created an object model storage similar to git's, and no one did (except Linus Torvalds). > Your explanation is quite clear to me (and probably everyone else > here). But I'll just leave it at that. Is it? Then you would have no trouble steel manning my argument, which you haven't done. -- Felipe Contreras
