From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90C301F8CF for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 00:35:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751467AbdFGAfQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2017 20:35:16 -0400 Received: from mail-io0-f195.google.com ([209.85.223.195]:34571 "EHLO mail-io0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750766AbdFGAfP (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2017 20:35:15 -0400 Received: by mail-io0-f195.google.com with SMTP id a96so123535ioj.1 for ; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 17:35:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=2s2BCwT+O2ZuEHK7m7fSZmP3Y+4mbuIZBEN1WuYLeRM=; b=CrVu6ixl95PcfNP97pzhnACjTMjysR1UQk/EiLCqHSNDSePIEODxqCGplPI62WzQ4k OXOXDparQ+sjc0SYT8c1xubfC73lfZ0Ry8Altmx8pxNkqCUojWVBovcTf92PXehaf4kB 0hmMTD/7WaPim6vf2yEo3/EELhfrq90ozGaEmLsrtyfZSWqnorKrrUYiI2QsUI0maexH KQhaAU4o8hNx39/3+ncu3JbV68WwhBZgAtz+bfjbTYW2fQcT3VwCBgCEc5Sa5XhQXGoM 0oGMzBIkwTULg89H90qIYvkzCiTuarYptNs+RtkuOtTibprihdyaAOua3ZTWxf/mil7P vg8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=2s2BCwT+O2ZuEHK7m7fSZmP3Y+4mbuIZBEN1WuYLeRM=; b=Ui1OoL7nkow9OFXiutcHRzc3tY+jal9eJKAxr/hzi2ZzGckoAspPAGNIjm02ExnRll faWiB0A2apWvifibQ6EDRZHIlF+8LML8JthnmkBu/VXMxeLdK//jHWXx8dg3iQVCb8BJ Ml/UeU+ydjalH/4/3/ZANg3/Xi0lXRCvxWy4d/sBT2iYMlVX5QyD0fvMN8uymsXCU28V 1cItO6fS0S3Xp40Uzx1FEUzcISFOO3vPKEaBoAdgC82jDWfnIofnmUIOshXnfhMXIHEp 9GsRk+6oksOBDHhTiqXg6r5T5Z33pZwQHhBw9rESZrplk9sqqqNTAfalTGOuegaYJ+XK Vv9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCjLncOakaTyHBETXQAZU+RGFyKfJOFbRr3bnttZYwtSVYWcrlv zejMWA1uGOTDLBDkiKUiTq91nTzevw== X-Received: by 10.107.201.206 with SMTP id z197mr33348185iof.85.1496795714510; Tue, 06 Jun 2017 17:35:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.79.72.66 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Jun 2017 17:34:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20170531104213.16944-1-phillip.wood@talktalk.net> <20170531104213.16944-3-phillip.wood@talktalk.net> <20170602175455.GA30988@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> From: Samuel Lijin Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 20:34:33 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output To: Stefan Beller Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Jonathan Nieder , Junio C Hamano , Phillip Wood , "git@vger.kernel.org" , =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 6:45 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: >> >> 4) we still have the problem that there is no cryptography expert among >> those who in the Git project are listened to > > I can assure you that Jonathan listened to crypto experts. It just did not > happen on the mailing list, which is sad regarding openness and transparency. In the interest of openness and transparency, perhaps a blue doc should be put together to outline and document the hash function that succeeds SHA1, and the rationales for doing so? It would, ideally, cite (preferably by including, and not just linking to) any discussions with crypto experts that have chimed in off-list (given said experts' consent for any such communication to be publicized, naturally). If I'm not mistaken, the only such doc behind the transition right now is the Git hash function transition document, which covers the technical barriers to replacing SHA1, but not why we might choose X to replace SHA1.