Re: [PATCH 1/5] http-protocol.txt: document SHA-256 "want"/"have" format

From: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2020, 20:32 UTC
Message-ID: <CAN0heSqBfvVT18C5nHcAtO1YCCnVC7xUfjrYtS2vH6gw7uX7kQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200814202347.GN8085@camp.crustytoothpaste.net>

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 22:23, brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

>
> On 2020-08-14 at 17:28:27, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > Document that in SHA-1 repositories, we use SHA-1 for "want"s and
> > > "have"s, and in SHA-256 repositories, we use SHA-256.
> >
> > Ehh, doesn't this directly contradict the transition plan of "on the
> > wire everything will use SHA-1 version for now?"

Yes, the transition plan would probably need updating there. I'm just trying to document what we have.

Show 8 quoted lines

> SHA-256 repositories interoperate currently using SHA-256 object IDs.
> It was originally intended that we wouldn't update the protocol, but
> that leads to much of the testsuite failing since it's impossible to
> move objects from one place to another.
>
> If we wanted to be more pedantically correct and optimize for the
> future, we could say that the values use the format negotiated by the
> "object-format" protocol extension and SHA-1 otherwise.

Hmm, I didn't think of that. Would we ever regret that we've painted such a "big" picture and wish to refine it somehow? Compared to admittedly being fairly narrow as I am here, then loosen things later. I'll think about it, but I think I could go either way.

Martin