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,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 5CC591F66F for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 18:51:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726503AbgKBSvv (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2020 13:51:51 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:50127 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726506AbgKBSvv (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Nov 2020 13:51:51 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287D31005F9; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 13:51:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=NtNhDXck1/AErEozA6BzrUqV1dE=; b=Mip8XL xkB6OuvvY3DFqjzgVR1GBIUZyZm8LKmscvjIemoiTwO2+FDYYOhGMEqUgBdUcbv/ VwaxuD9dofA7OS7VnuQH54xKhy/oVqeBB6a/DH/s6F/mjuKT4ckFMvdi3nDRUzFH rytROk0DNdWpbrn1maTFMwwWFrYMgw6NbxcME= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=rrHmXBpT1E0odfPFKqFi4whWWl1Y3dqa 6S24b3GYpk6cV4Dgxh5XiDFsyxsVO2B6jir9insw9uEmA6onF9I7u1rk4UmEfkQk nIoBkEEjqkq/ZUZArTChP/fofGnbl5PuHRVMTkQTw8QkQy/tqwArcFH2VqQ7FjWf ReglISvmylI= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20D771005F7; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 13:51:49 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5DD411005F6; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 13:51:46 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Tan Cc: Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de, git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: jc/sequencer-stopped-sha-simplify, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Oct 2020, #04; Tue, 27) References: <20201102184634.3280859-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 10:51:44 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20201102184634.3280859-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> (Jonathan Tan's message of "Mon, 2 Nov 2020 10:46:34 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 750D12A2-1D3C-11EB-9549-E43E2BB96649-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Tan writes: >> I do not mind taking the approach as a prudent and careful thing, >> but I want the question answered regardless, as I know Jonathan is >> in a good position to tell if this is just a theoretical issue than >> I am, and depending on the answer, we may rethink the approach of >> trying to be overly careful. > > From what I see, this is just a theoretical issue for now. (I spotted it > while looking at the code, not because of a bug report.) If there is no actual damage, then probably the earlier "let's be extra careful" Dscho mentioned may equally have been us being unnecessarily cautious. Assuming that you didn't apply this patch to the internal version you ship to your developers---if you did, then we truly gained no data from this exchange because the original tightening had no chance to even cause the damage. In any case, let's merge the loosening patch down to 'maint'. Thanks for being careful. .