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-Status: No, score=-3.9 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,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 BBEA41F66E for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 20:33:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726778AbgHNUdH (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2020 16:33:07 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37696 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726297AbgHNUdH (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Aug 2020 16:33:07 -0400 Received: from mail-vk1-xa44.google.com (mail-vk1-xa44.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a44]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E1BAC061385 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:33:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk1-xa44.google.com with SMTP id j7so2275708vkk.12 for ; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:33:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=E4lVRtWHSOsXhcGtMTcD4/qVdz9qUzsWUoMPw1M/JcU=; b=UUjW+LWivyWwcJ9GMOoqC5oBcutib6gF0srAcwk7Rvo/oaPmnj6zybuuYT47j9C03h j+fKYZTlV7AXYsXyriLfTGz85H/MMjWfSvc43/0nnAiXzHjHf+7qFhqABYOGp1ZAz8gP u+bzyQNLyMcoRsQHASQP5Osf92EIjiKqlg5KYcuXwJ63L4tLYq7qC21yHlxYS67fetnD sNt7mcEaBJAcA5z1l1CHlnNg23rKn41IuCaxitNCDHc1VUMwrV2NSmG9Y7ULL/AZi9K/ hvXRMjHoUvjFTIfc4n7mWfF39AFs9sN79BEGQIkRc7Qp48CzVauD5FMtX59uaSWcaWDa qudQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=E4lVRtWHSOsXhcGtMTcD4/qVdz9qUzsWUoMPw1M/JcU=; b=iD8ccB8lCOachmWjON4SP03Th0wlL92sRGcJEIdcakuLyZBBLqt7GstWwMMiXzalGL awgl6ob69eR9ZrO4vLV42AIZLSnz/dnFAiO6mGOfQCQHyxY1b6GCmEN9Nao/AxKYNyc7 U+pt3LxcFx7cHhy4R3KmFMfD46PmitWHqlWM3PbJ5HTwiRYcQLstqwEgFTf0JcfbYE5q +KBozE2HkwOdMSJkjmJgCO652aR32BWk0NMOzJDM4AFx9Me97lHmoh+rBWnz8F99IXaT I+z2IhM4tsL1cWYSE5iCxrUwa6WimfLY2+zzSa2hhjM5odtFjm8+DgomSaLa8F7104PC kegA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532gzq4i5pmwjtmtHpFub2ChQfv8MOW9BwFcx9MZMAKaJSSCsE9a WLsmWTxAyBvtmrpAkc8AMHy1QePaWlzqtz3YwOY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy4nmbiKiRooZxnt7kY26QeSmQ7q40f1NFqPZ8M6X3fzSBHFbURuxnzDZd1M+t9F8SH7e5x81vNC/yY/gykjwc= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:1d12:: with SMTP id d18mr2809212vkd.88.1597437185122; Fri, 14 Aug 2020 13:33:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200813224901.2652387-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <5590a68c5ba7081cd7e64c708b5c25db23f5e95b.1597406877.git.martin.agren@gmail.com> <20200814202347.GN8085@camp.crustytoothpaste.net> In-Reply-To: <20200814202347.GN8085@camp.crustytoothpaste.net> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_=C3=85gren?= Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 22:32:51 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] http-protocol.txt: document SHA-256 "want"/"have" format To: "brian m. carlson" , Junio C Hamano , =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_=C3=85gren?= , Git Mailing List , Derrick Stolee Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 22:23, brian m. carlson wrote: > > On 2020-08-14 at 17:28:27, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Martin =C3=85gren writes: > > > > > Document that in SHA-1 repositories, we use SHA-1 for "want"s and > > > "have"s, and in SHA-256 repositories, we use SHA-256. > > > > Ehh, doesn't this directly contradict the transition plan of "on the > > wire everything will use SHA-1 version for now?" Yes, the transition plan would probably need updating there. I'm just trying to document what we have. > SHA-256 repositories interoperate currently using SHA-256 object IDs. > It was originally intended that we wouldn't update the protocol, but > that leads to much of the testsuite failing since it's impossible to > move objects from one place to another. > > If we wanted to be more pedantically correct and optimize for the > future, we could say that the values use the format negotiated by the > "object-format" protocol extension and SHA-1 otherwise. Hmm, I didn't think of that. Would we ever regret that we've painted such a "big" picture and wish to refine it somehow? Compared to admittedly being fairly narrow as I am here, then loosen things later. I'll think about it, but I think I could go either way. Martin