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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, 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 4F4B71F9FD for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 17:10:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232437AbhCJRJR (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:09:17 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:58758 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232335AbhCJRI5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:08:57 -0500 Received: (qmail 6491 invoked by uid 109); 10 Mar 2021 17:08:56 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 17:08:56 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 23472 invoked by uid 111); 10 Mar 2021 17:08:56 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:08:56 -0500 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:08:55 -0500 From: Jeff King To: Elijah Newren Cc: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason , "brian m. carlson" , Git Mailing List , Eric Sunshine Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/39] SHA-256, part 3/3 Message-ID: References: <20200728233446.3066485-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <20200729231428.3658647-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <8735x3i59m.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 08:36:15AM -0800, Elijah Newren wrote: > Honestly not sure it's worth bothering fixing filter-branch at this > point, given the strong WARNINGs we added to it. If anything, I'd > just add another warning to the pile for this issue. If folks really > still want/need filter-branch once SHA-256 is the only option, I'm > sure they'll be motivated to make the necessary fixes (or just use/fix > filter-repo's filter-branch-ish). You're probably right that it's not a good use of time, but I just sent a series fixing it. It was one of those cases where I was like "oh, it's probably just X". And then "no, wait...", and before I knew it I had wasted an hour fixing filter-branch. ;) -Peff