From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C87B31F545 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 16:45:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=sasl header.b=ulSyXXra; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231512AbjGZQoZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:44:25 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59130 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231477AbjGZQoX (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:44:23 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (pb-smtp20.pobox.com [173.228.157.52]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2730E26BC for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 09:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1F537F2B; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:44:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=63mfyL6KOIAcjV40CqzWGjSiq35BzVUnP4lehh pII7Y=; b=ulSyXXraeyv2QNvhlpBJ/rOgMQy/i0Yo2CI9QS9Cgm//547G0t4etV 7dRiIrSiBn4KJcjjAW9V+v+fNVHq7mMIhRohNd9NMXivIBYj26dnfmjHw5POFalC jqHPDOgFmtkUuZLdJ6L6WXQNQhAIJvCoadWbD1uOvuuc4Kg4KPmVY= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B7437F2A; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:44:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.168.215.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2039537F26; Wed, 26 Jul 2023 12:44:07 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Adam Majer Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: SHA256 support not experimental, or? References: <2f5de416-04ba-c23d-1e0b-83bb655829a7@zombino.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 09:44:05 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 20 Jul 2023 11:18:08 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: A3372EC6-2BD3-11EE-A5E3-C2DA088D43B2-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Adam Majer writes: > >> I'll try again with inline patch. >> >> From 90be51143e741053390810720ba4a639c3b0b74c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > Remove all the above lines (including the "From ... >> Signed-off-by: Adam Majer >> --- >> Documentation/git.txt | 4 ++-- >> Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt | 8 ++------ >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> ... > This side looks OK (just removing the single sentence). > >> Git Commits >> ~~~~~~~~~~~ >> diff --git a/Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt b/Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt >> index 4cb106f0d1..1e976688be 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt >> @@ -1,6 +1,2 @@ >> ... > > The original did not have this problem because it had enough > surrounding context, but the updated text now risks getting misread > as if there are "regular" and "special" SHA-1 repositories, the > latter of which might work better with SHA-256. > > And the message about SHA-256's non-experimental status can probably > be a lot stronger, after the discussion we had recently. How about > saying something like: > > Note: there is no interoperability between SHA-256 repositories > and SHA-1 repositories right now. We historically warned that > SHA-256 repositories may need backward incompatible changes > later when we introduce such interoperability features, but at > this point we do not expect that we need to make such a change > when we do so, and the users can expect that their SHA-256 > repositories they create with today's Git will be usable by > future versions of Git without losing information. > > which would probably be much closer to what you wanted to hear? It has been a week. Any news on this topic? Thanks.