Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] alternate hash test

[Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:06 AM, brian m. carlson
<sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
> This series wires up an alternate hash implementation, namely
> BLAKE2b-160.  The goal is to allow us to identify tests which rely on
> the hash algorithm in use so that we can fix those tests.
>
> For this test, I picked BLAKE2b-160 for a couple reasons:
> * Debian ships a libb2-1 package which can be used easily (in other
>   words, I was lazy and didn't want to add a crypto implementation just
>   for test purposes);
> * The API of the libb2 package easily allows arbitrary hash lengths, so
>   I didn't have to manage truncation myself;
> * Our codebase isn't yet ready for a hash function larger than 20 bytes,
>   as there's still more work to do on the object_id conversions.
>
> This isn't an endorsement for or against any particular algorithm
> choice, just an artifact of the tools that were easily available to me.
> Provoking discussion of which hash to pick for NewHash is explicitly
> *not* a goal for this series.  I'm only interested in the ability to
> identify and fix tests.
>
> The first patch does no feature detection and just assumes you have
> libb2 installed.  For obvious reasons, this series is not meant for
> production use.

Thanks for writing this, I chose a slightly different approach at
https://public-inbox.org/git/20170728171817.21458-2-sbeller@google.com/
which might be quicker for local testing.

Thanks for bringing this discussion back on the list,
Stefan