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=-3.4 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,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI 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 8848E1F42E for ; Mon, 7 May 2018 10:10:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751961AbeEGKKq (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2018 06:10:46 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f194.google.com ([209.85.192.194]:42171 "EHLO mail-pf0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751855AbeEGKKl (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 May 2018 06:10:41 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f194.google.com with SMTP id p14so11104063pfh.9 for ; Mon, 07 May 2018 03:10:40 -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=Ddfy+dit7EDK+Y8pYhtd1UDSkCuze0n5TJV77AxwaSc=; b=Nsm4TTMGLjGnxNN0qpjIiSCPmYzPH6SGpM+edP1q9nmomW/tikz6KYAiQ2hYotwGcO Ans+ZyIGGmmzbvPX8YyZTKTfuMRAwdwgrSqW8AAtwqXyeCAZyeXY2yy9ODSrruV26B4d oRnn48NrNgCCASRWYN2zG2k9ycrrB70iMOdECSv8UFQ9q2sImtFh/5d1hnzABBi0cUPw 38m6ALmeXRKXdpGJBZle89hgnlrO2FfVkMLrgLsn/nCFYwvEJpD05EVoM/8vG9hYZmux QTfl/5TLNy2ByoBK4gcGgmEyLu7jve5ndfdUrgKRJz/yi4+miSWVw4h8vZ8jwWSpakMI 07iw== 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=Ddfy+dit7EDK+Y8pYhtd1UDSkCuze0n5TJV77AxwaSc=; b=LSyGBUPBlpwzqtAQLYkkh2A+zc12zLumSwtHXbeNXLuRRwemVhO7nqPtygXaCJJOcr /dfQ/1/l1Hrfc8NiuSRnkyAWf58tnK0KKC8ZkF7khJFkBLJFhJToi+CGfvbtgkzJ/uNs QshUW6S/h1BJwH9SdmGeGS9KoHarIJu8pCi/Fu+eC3SSdSj4ecrPb/dYK3Mun79xZDJl /cBmY31Kh7QZFsEv6FQ8pH/7gF/QDQWCVZS6D8E7neGW9QWveB0iPWlobias0iWkGcnb HfI4iQzwdDEDGyxTfg+uLS3nwYgH1TZQsaKR8kBDEmsP1LWnFWwNYUHkn9anVZUmtFus R+OA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tBTldkKRRC414E1o3yHlg4x4tGrqEn9nyG8kfhCZHNO41juI2Hu vZd4nupKoenKkCMrHD9jT9dmC9Om6E144EPqx1Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZo5MgoDo4Pi2XX1VkywSqRWJMDAA+hhY+Nkzfi7GZZivsXuwtKDfZOhpVKXXcC3XApmi0P89Ii9JKFotTTIXbw= X-Received: by 10.98.11.3 with SMTP id t3mr36382111pfi.32.1525687840567; Mon, 07 May 2018 03:10:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.187.139 with HTTP; Mon, 7 May 2018 03:10:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20180506231752.975110-2-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> References: <20180506231752.975110-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <20180506231752.975110-2-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_=C3=85gren?= Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 12:10:39 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/28] t/test-lib: add an SHA1 prerequisite To: "brian m. carlson" Cc: Git Mailing List , Junio C Hamano , =?UTF-8?B?Tmd1eeG7hW4gVGjDoWkgTmfhu41jIER1eQ==?= , Johannes Schindelin , Lars Schneider 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 7 May 2018 at 01:17, brian m. carlson wrote: > Add an SHA1 prerequisite to annotate both of these types of tests and > disable them when we're using a different hash. In the future, we can > create versions of these tests which handle both SHA-1 and NewHash. Minor nit: s/can/can and should/ > + > +# SHA1 is a test if the hash algorithm in use is SHA-1. This is both for tests > +# which will not work with other hash algorithms and tests that work but don't > +# test anything meaningful (e.g. special values which cause short collisions). > +test_lazy_prereq SHA1 ' > + test $(git hash-object /dev/null) = e69de29bb2d1d6434b8b29ae775ad8c2e48c5391 > +' So SHA1 means roughly "git hash-object uses SHA-1, so supposedly everything on disk is SHA-1." I could imagine one or two different meanings: "Git was compiled with support for SHA-1 [oids]." Do we actually need more SHA-1-related prereqs, at least long-term, in which case we would want to find a more specific name for this one now? Is this SHA1_STORAGE, or some much better name than that? I am thinking for example about a repo with NewHash that gets pushed to and fetched from a SHA-1 server, see hash-function-transition.txt, goal 1b. We'd want to always test that SHA-1-related functionality in git. (But only until the day when someone defines a prereq such as "SHA1" to be able to test a git that was compiled without any traces of SHA-1 whatsoever.) Martin