Re: [RFC] adding support for md5
Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
Show 7 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
>> I personally am not interested in making this configurable at
>> all. The hashcmp() change on the other hand to abstract out 20
>> was a good preparation, if we ever want to switch to longer
>> hashes we would know where to look.
>
> What about all of those memcpy(a, b, 20)'s? :-)
Surely. If you are inclined to, go wild.
> I can see us wanting to support say SHA-128 or SHA-256 in a few
> years. Especially as processors get faster and better attacks are
> developed against SHA-1 such that its no longer really the best
> trade-off hash function available.
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>