On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 09:45:52AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason  <avarab@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > @@ -125,19 +122,19 @@ Detailed Design
> >  ---------------
> >  Repository format extension
> >  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > -A NewHash repository uses repository format version `1` (see
> > +A SHA-256 repository uses repository format version `1` (see
> >  Documentation/technical/repository-version.txt) with extensions
> >  `objectFormat` and `compatObjectFormat`:
> >  
> >  	[core]
> >  		repositoryFormatVersion = 1
> >  	[extensions]
> > -		objectFormat = newhash
> > +		objectFormat = sha256
> >  		compatObjectFormat = sha1
> 
> Whenever we said SHA1, somebody came and told us that the name of
> the hash is SHA-1 (with dash).  Would we be nitpicker-prone in the
> same way with "sha256" here?

I actually have a patch to make the names "sha1" and "sha256".  My
rationale is that it's shorter and easier to type.  People can quibble
about it when I send it to the list, but that's what I'm proposing at
least.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204