From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 04:46:08 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC] adding support for md5
Message-ID: <7v3bbojbzj.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20060823041453.GA25796@spearce.org>

Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> writes:

> 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.