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=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,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 C9B181F545 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 20:57:04 +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=tJmHNjSD; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229727AbjF2U5C (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2023 16:57:02 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:49102 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230189AbjF2U5A (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Jun 2023 16:57:00 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (pb-smtp1.pobox.com [64.147.108.70]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E5131719 for ; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 13:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB27D1994D6; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 16:56:58 -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=/6A5FjKj9FHLPKWMuhoRw34Hejr926w+doWGxR 5+poY=; b=tJmHNjSDpIfo4JToF1S+DThMrYiCemG9Z9QFBtwoFC+cwzu9glJpyL 2lw9d1SQQO0Siwdv81LdVpfaCm8ruYYhnMeMEeplFo+MMYJKJ764Yf+IRGkqrI0Y 6/use4N6O6UsLRMdJUOy1Bwq7RKMvqnGRkvakstuYGekcJ50eaD6c= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D300E1994D5; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 16:56:58 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.233.135.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 458CF1994D4; Thu, 29 Jun 2023 16:56:58 -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> <65148753-7071-d5d5-3b4e-bad020e6ab63@zombino.com> Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 13:56:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: <65148753-7071-d5d5-3b4e-bad020e6ab63@zombino.com> (Adam Majer's message of "Thu, 29 Jun 2023 12:53:16 +0200") 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: 7CC64C6E-16BF-11EE-8DA9-C65BE52EC81B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Adam Majer writes: > So maybe my question should be reworded to "is sha256 still considered > early stage, for testing purposes only with possible data-loss or can > it be relied on for actual long lived repositories?" My understanding is that they are in a happy place where they are just as usable as SHA-1 based repositories have been. As we have well-worked out interoperability design but no implementation, it may have to change once we discover something missing in the design, though. But without such clarification, you already know the answer to the above question in the message you are responding to. Having a migration path means "possible data-los" is not in the picture. > The scary wording should be removed > though, as currently it sounds like "data loss incoming and it's your > fault" if one chooses sha256 Good. THanks.