From: Patryk Obara Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 12:11:19 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] sha1_file: fix hardcoded size in null_sha1 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Junio C Hamano wrote: > I said this is OK for "null" because we assume we will use ^\0{len}$ > for any hash function we choose as the "impossible" value, and for > that particular use pattern, we do not need such a union. Just > letting the caller peek at an appropriate number of bytes at the > beginning of that NUL buffer for hash the caller wants to use is > sufficient. Do you think I should record this explanation as either commit message or comment in sha1_file.c? > MAX is inevitable only if we envision that we have to handle objects > named using two or more hashing schemes at the same time, with the > same binary and during the same run inside a single process. I think this will be the case if "transition one local repository at a time" from Jonathan Nieder's transition plan will be followed. This plan assumes object_id translation happening e.g. during fetch operation. -- | ← Ceci n'est pas une pipe Patryk Obara