[PATCH 0/2] document that NewHash is now SHA-256

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Jul 25, 2018, 08:30 UTC
Message-ID: <20180725083024.16131-1-avarab@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqzhygwd5o.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On Tue, Jul 24 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 20 quoted lines

> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 12:01 PM Edward Thomson
>> <ethomson@edwardthomson.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Switching gears, if I look at this from the perspective of the libgit2
>>> project, I would also prefer SHA-256 or SHA3 over blake2b.  To support
>>> blake2b, we'd have to include - and support - that code ourselves.  But
>>> to support SHA-256, we would simply use the system's crypto libraries
>>> that we already take a dependecy on (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG, or
>>> SecureTransport).
>>
>> I think this is probably the single strongest argument for sha256.
>> "It's just there".
>
> Yup.  I actually was leaning toward saying "all of them are OK in
> practice, so the person who is actually spear-heading the work gets
> to choose", but if we picked SHA-256 now, that would not be a choice
> that Brian has to later justify for choosing against everybody
> else's wishes, which makes it the best choice ;-)

Looks like it's settled then. I thought I'd do the grunt work of updating the relevant documentation so we can officially move on from the years-long NewHash discussion.

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (2):
  doc hash-function-transition: note the lack of a changelog
  doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash

 .../technical/hash-function-transition.txt    | 192 ++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 102 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-)

-- 
2.17.0.290.gded63e768a