From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:38:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <9e4733910610140807p633f5660q49dd2d2111c9f5fe@mail.gmail.com> <45357411.20500@utoronto.ca> <200610180246.18758.jnareb@gmail.com> <45357CC3.4040507@utoronto.ca> <4536EC93.9050305@utoronto.ca> <87lkncev90.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <453792A8.1010700@utoronto.ca> <878xjc2qeb.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <453803E6.2060309@utoronto.ca> <87ods727pn.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <45382120.9060702@utoronto.ca> <45387F04.5010101@research.canon.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com, git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 20 10:39:15 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GapuG-0000Hm-6S for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:39:08 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2992591AbWJTIjF (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:39:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2992592AbWJTIjE (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:39:04 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20]:5277 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S2992591AbWJTIjC (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:39:02 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2006 08:39:00 -0000 Received: from wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO dumbo2) [132.187.25.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp010) with SMTP; 20 Oct 2006 10:39:00 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-X-Sender: gene099@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de To: Lachlan Patrick In-Reply-To: <45387F04.5010101@research.canon.com.au> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Lachlan Patrick wrote: > How does git disambiguate SHA1 hash collisions? It does not. You can fully expect the universe to go down before that happens. The only reasonable worry is about SHA-1 being broken some time in future, i.e. being able to construct a malign version of some source code _which has the same hash_. There were plenty of discussions about that; Please search the mailing list. (The consent was that those do not matter, because an existing object will _never_ be overwritten by a fetch, so you would not get that invalid object anyway.) Hth, Dscho