Re: [PATCH 00/15] SHA-256 test fixes, part 6

[Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>]

On 10/5/2019 5:11 PM, brian m. carlson wrote:
> This series consists mostly of additional test fixes for SHA-256, plus
> some test framework improvements and a new option to rev-parse.
> 
> Up until now, most of the test changes have been directly related to
> fixing hash values or sizes in some way.  In other words, previous test
> fixes would be required even for a Git binary that supported only
> SHA-256 and not SHA-1.
> 
> In this series, we also introduce some test changes that deal with the
> extension that will allow the same binary to handle both.  The changes
> themselves are relatively uninteresting, but changes like these will be
> making appearances in future test fix series as well.  They may appear
> bizarre and out of place at times, but rest assured that they will be
> useful in the future.
> 
> The other notable thing in this series is the introduction of a new
> rev-parse option, --object-format.  We know, according to the transition
> plan, that we'll need to support users working with input and output
> in different hash algorithms.  Since we're starting to see this kind of
> code appear in the codebase, it makes sense to introduce a helper that
> lets scripters determine the appropriate value, and we should introduce
> this code sooner, rather than later, so people can start using it.
> 
> We had had some discussions about the name of options to be used for
> hash algorithms but I don't recall us coming to a definitive conclusion.
> Opinions about the name[0] are of course welcome.  I'm not particularly
> attached to any name, so whatever the consensus is works for me.
> 
> [0] Possibilities include --object-format, --show-object-format, --hash,
> --show-hash, --hash-algorithm, --show-hash-algorithm, and more.
Outside of a question regarding using a test-tool instead of adding an
option to 'git rev-parse', I found this series very readable.

My confusion around the printf|git hash-object stuff that is now
resolved. The error was in my reading, not in the presentation.

Thanks for your continued hard work on this subject!

-Stolee