Is the sha256 object format experimental or not?

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: May 10, 2021, 12:22 UTC
Message-ID: <87lf8mu642.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <YJcqqYsOerijsxRQ@camp.crustytoothpaste.net>

On Sun, May 09 2021, brian m. carlson wrote:

Show 32 quoted lines

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On 2021-05-08 at 02:22:25, dwh@linuxprogrammer.org wrote:
>> Hi Everybody,
>> 
>> I was reading through the
>> Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt doc and realized
>> that the plan is to support allowing BOTH SHA1 and SHA256 signatures to
>> exist in a single object:
>> 
>> > Signed Commits
>> > 1. using SHA-1 only, as in existing signed commit objects
>> > 2. using both SHA-1 and SHA-256, by using both gpgsig-sha256 and gpgsig
>> >   fields.
>> > 3. using only SHA-256, by only using the gpgsig-sha256 field.
>> > 
>> > Signed Tags
>> > 1. using SHA-1 only, as in existing signed tag objects
>> > 2. using both SHA-1 and SHA-256, by using gpgsig-sha256 and an in-body
>> >   signature.
>> > 3. using only SHA-256, by only using the gpgsig-sha256 field.
>
> Yes, this is the case.  We have tests for this case.
>
>> The design that I'm working on only supports a single signature that
>> uses a combination of fields: one 'signtype', zero or more 'signoption'
>> and one 'sign' in objects. I am thinking that the best thing to do is
>> replace the gpgsig-sha256 fields in objects and allow old gpgsig (commits)
>> and in-body (tags) signatures to co-exist along side to give the same
>> functionality.
>
> You can't do that.  SHA-256 repositories already exist and that would
> break compatibility.

From memory this is at least the second time you've brought up this point on-list.

My feeling is that almost nobody's using sha256 currently, and we have a very prominent ALL CAPS warning saying the format is experimental and may change, see ff233d8dda1 (Documentation: mark `--object-format=sha256` as experimental, 2020-08-16).

I agree with the docs as they stand, and don't think we should hold back on changing the object format for sha256 in general if there's a compelling reason to do so.

Whether this suggested change has a compelling reason is another matter (I haven't reviewed it).

But it seems to me that if the main person pushing the sha256 effort disagrees with the content of Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt, we'd be better off at this point discussing a patch to change the wording there to something to the effect that we consider the format set in stone at this point.