On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 08:26:05PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
> On 8 May 2018 at 01:30, brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 12:10:39PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
> >> Do we actually need more SHA-1-related prereqs, at least long-term, in
> >> which case we would want to find a more specific name for this one now?
> >> Is this SHA1_STORAGE, or some much better name than that?
> >
> > We may.  The transition plan anticipates several states:
> 
> "We may" as in, "we may need more SHA1-FOO prereqs later", or "we may
> want this to be SHA1-BAR"?

As in, we may need additional prerequisites.

> I do not feel entirely relaxed about a reasoning such as "this prereq
> will soon go away again, so we do not need to think too much about its
> name and meaning" (heavily paraphrased and possibly a bit pointed, but
> hopefully not too dishonest).

I think "SHA1" is short and reasonable considering that it's basically
stating, "This test depends on Git using SHA-1."  That's all we're
stating here.

I agree that the expected lifetime of the code should not impact its
design or naming in this case.  As someone who does maintenance for a
living, I'm all too aware that code lives far longer than its expected
lifetime.

> I guess a counter-argument might be "sure, if only we knew which
> SHA1-FOOs we will need. Only time and experience will tell." You've
> certainly spent way more brain-cycles on this than I have, and most
> likely more than anyone else on this list.
> 
> Maybe we want to document the transition-ness of this in the code and/or
> the commit message. Not only "transition" in the sense of the big
> transition, but in the sense of "this will probably go away long before
> the transition is completed."

Sure.  I can fix this up in a reroll.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204