On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 04:36:04PM -0500, Taylor Blau wrote: > > So I dunno. None of those are the fault of your series, but it is piling > > on yet another test-tool command. > > Yeah, I think there was a fair amount of interesting discussion about > possible alternatives in this thread, which I am appreciative of. > > I think that if nobody has strong feelings or issues with the current > implementation to add the sha1-unsafe test-tool, that we should do so > and take these patches. I'm OK with that direction. > In the future we can consider other things on top, like dropping the > test-sha1.sh script, having an unsafe pointer embedded within > the_hash_algo, or something else entirely. But those can be done on top, > or not at all, and I don't want to hold up this series for them. Sounds good. -Peff
