On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 12:20:14AM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > Object format > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > The content as a byte sequence of a tag, commit, or tree object named > > -by sha1 and newhash differ because an object named by newhash-name refers to > > +by sha1 and sha256 differ because an object named by sha256-name refers to > > Not about this patch: this should say SHA-1 and SHA-256, I think. > Leaving it as is in this patch as you did is the right thing. > > [...] > > @@ -255,10 +252,10 @@ network byte order): > > up to and not including the table of CRC32 values. > > - Zero or more NUL bytes. > > - The trailer consists of the following: > > - - A copy of the 20-byte NewHash checksum at the end of the > > + - A copy of the 20-byte SHA-256 checksum at the end of the > > Not about this patch: a SHA-256 is 32 bytes. Leaving that for a > separate patch as you did is the right thing, though. > > [...] > > - - 20-byte NewHash checksum of all of the above. > > + - 20-byte SHA-256 checksum of all of the above. > > Likewise. For the record, my code for these does use 32 bytes. I'm fine with this being a separate patch, though. > [...] > > @@ -351,12 +348,12 @@ the following steps: > > (This list only contains objects reachable from the "wants". If the > > pack from the server contained additional extraneous objects, then > > they will be discarded.) > > -3. convert to newhash: open a new (newhash) packfile. Read the topologically > > +3. convert to sha256: open a new (sha256) packfile. Read the topologically > > Not about this patch: this one's more murky, since it's talking about > the object names instead of the hash function. I guess "sha256" > instead of "SHA-256" for this could be right, but I worry it's going > to take time for me to figure out the exact distinction. That seems > like a reason to just call it SHA-256 (but in a separate patch). My assumption has been that when we are referring to the algorithm, we'll use SHA-1 and SHA-256, and when we're referring to the input to Git (in config files or in ^{sha256} notation), we use "sha1" and "sha256". I see this as analogous to "Git" and "git". Otherwise, I'm fine with this document as it is. -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204