Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/32] SHA256 and SHA1 interoperability

From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Date: Sep 11, 2023, 16:13 UTC
Message-ID: <87cyyoeli0.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq8r9di5ba.fsf@gitster.g>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com> writes:
>
>> I would like to see the SHA256 transition happen so I started playing
>> with the k2204-transition-interop branch of brian m. carlson's tree.
>
> I needed these tweaks to build the series standalone on 'master' (or
> 2.42).  There are semantic merge conflicts with some topics in flight
> when this is merged to 'seen', so it may take me a bit more time to
> push the integration result.

Junio, brian for the very warm reception of this, it is very encouraging.

I am not worried about what it will take time to get the changes I posted into the integration. I had only envisioned them as good enough to get the technical ideas across, and had never envisioned them as being accepted as is.

What I am envisioning as my future directions are:

- Post non controversial cleanups, so they can be merged.
  (I can only see about 4 of them the most significant is:
   bulk-checkin: Only accept blobs)

- Sort out the configuration options

- Post the smallest patchset I can that will allow testing the code in
  object-file-convert.c.  Unfortunately for that I need configuration
  options to enable the mapping.

  In starting to write the tests I have already found a bug in
  the conversion of tags (an extra newline is added), and I haven't
  even gotten to testing the tricky bits with signatures.

- Once the object file conversion is tested and is solid work on
  the more substantial pieces.

Does that sound like a reasonable plan?

Eric