On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 10:11:20AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> - these callers are safe to use the fast (and potentially non-collision > >> + these callers are safe to use the unsafe (and potentially non-collision > >> detecting) SHA-1 implementation. > > > > Is the "and potentially non-collision detecting" parenthetical comment > > still needed now that it's referred to as unsafe? Even if we keep > > most of it, maybe we should drop the "and"? > > I appreciate a careful reading like this. The use of "unsafe" > becomes easier to understandable if we lost "potentially", e.g. > > are safe to use the unsafe SHA-1 implementation that does > not attempt to detect collisions. Me too. I ended up with a slightly different wording that matches Elijah's more than your own, but I appreciate the careful review from both of you. > > This patch was also fast->unsafe translations; I identified two above > > that I think should get some tweaks. > > Thanks for carefully reading. Ditto. Thanks, Taylor
