From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS53758 23.128.96.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E1A71F5AE for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 16:54:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239929AbhEQQzn (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2021 12:55:43 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45038 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235813AbhEQQzk (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2021 12:55:40 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-x834.google.com (mail-qt1-x834.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::834]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EC3EC061573 for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 09:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qt1-x834.google.com with SMTP id f8so5333628qth.6 for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 09:54:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=hvhu4GAWEzhd/NRhAz73L5g5z06TDV2NRGQUlDChMs8=; b=FgwoSwOuaeUv8CsNDulIX9sKzEMgrfle9hGrBfDzZghcNDZOF46pxdoU2wFC027B3K PmbPxLluUKWjBtii+8A9e2rBnGSuTmLHW9gRMPSBky6sLZX77Qm8zupltHiCAaXir3Om fsSo65+MLp34Nmh2+5CgpnqPd5JFANUBwnLrkCAtn1dQ6+beEC6Bqt0kN5ktBYQFOShp qQOO2d1OrSy24k3sDNcLrxK1q7wwgLV7uMa2CVURYrVC7sAB80XMms8JappNNjOYpy00 VQhKm2GHXIAx8WPnLSfFGKz0A05bzMqwz219IxEEcTcCGKDmipo6aMkYQnmI1bvyuAwY bMCw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=hvhu4GAWEzhd/NRhAz73L5g5z06TDV2NRGQUlDChMs8=; b=D7xmo2PravaFBukqLdtqlB26G/v0hJaxuD9m9n5MtK6nf0QyzMgMDEzJEDMPQ98yr9 vP18qtUH1xqElYiTtZU4LfmJ1Pbd8r072IP8yr3nq58J1UlsMwCDvRWk1HlibLsD8Mm6 L6B5gpJRIy1xD5v3ohJMEZyprJflZ8pQoksgRj1rN96Q+UpgvkVJFKdGtUUQNi9hpbZC nhsbBYddHuU9XMcuqYNGpKWhaSDBOAuqzZnWUsyxmwuj3FH7ZL13sxoU/sLMnuixqYlw cR9S5RrDMalvTHp9PaK1qQA5uPhKfAKMezpuen9S1ZRL5sBH3/f05gY8lv6oE13T+EYc sOdw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532C9ETXtTgIN9CVV2jNFfCDwIwzf8K7eNGxklpH5VbbxtHxAr0T xCDBDZF1wnCM8ORVXMkOvvDijyv4wPPwXg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzNXj5CAXrgdenwyuNXkE3iQys6iG0+OQR5+LUjl48RgvWbbILUpCSSbaIDaqSrerQQh0Rqww== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5c8d:: with SMTP id r13mr426017qta.69.1621270462442; Mon, 17 May 2021 09:54:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1700:e72:80a0:68e5:b0b1:d7d3:e820? ([2600:1700:e72:80a0:68e5:b0b1:d7d3:e820]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u6sm10614966qkj.117.2021.05.17.09.54.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 May 2021 09:54:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] parallel-checkout: send the new object_id algo field to the workers To: "brian m. carlson" , Matheus Tavares , git@vger.kernel.org References: From: Derrick Stolee Message-ID: <7182880b-0f1e-7b3e-dc6e-b72c8ddd14b3@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 12:54:21 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 5/14/2021 3:53 PM, brian m. carlson wrote: > On 2021-05-14 at 14:36:00, Matheus Tavares wrote:>> >> I've read the hash transition plan, but I'm not confident to say that I >> fully understand it yet, so maybe this patch is not exactly what we need >> here. Mainly, I'm not sure I understand in which cases we will have an >> object_id.algo that is not the_hash_algo. Is it for the early transition >> phases, where we have a SHA-256 repo that accepts user input as SHA-1? > > Yes, that's correct, as well as for interoperability with remotes using > a different hash algorithm. > >> Also, the object_id's copied here at send_one_item() always come from a >> `struct cache_entry`. In this case, can they still have different >> `algo`s or do we expect them to be the_hash_algo? > > No, things in the index should always use the same algorithm.. > > The patch looks fine to me. Chiming in to say I agree that this is a good patch. Thanks, -Stolee