On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 08:30:45AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > There was also the open question of whether we want to rename the new > `_fast` hash functions to `_unsafe` to make it stand out more that they > are indeed not safe for cryptographic uses. I am fine to rename it to unsafe_, etc. But the more that I think about this collision in loose object files, the less I think that it matters in practice. We would only hit it when trying to write a loose object and racing with another writer which is trying to write that same object as loose using different compression settings, which seems awfully rare. Perhaps there is some use-case or scenario that I am missing, but this seems like a very rare case to disable a check that is otherwise useful. Thanks, Taylor
