Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] mailmap: support hashed entries in mailmaps

> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
> 
> > For example, a person may transition from one gender to another,
> > changing their name, or they may have changed their name to disassociate
> > themselves from an abusive family or partner.  In such a case, using the
> > former name or address in any way may be undesirable and the person may
> > wish to replace it as completely as possible.
> 
> I am not sure if we want to even mention the "for example" here.
> 
> These are certainly all legitimate reasons to want this feature, but
> after reading the "for example", lack of a corresponding negative
> statement (e.g. sometimes people also change their name or address
> to hide their bad behaviour in the past that is associated with
> these names) needlessly stood out and made me wonder if we need to
> somehow defend the feature with "...but we do not mean to abet
> people in hiding their past bad behaviour with this mechanism".  I'd
> prefer us not forced to defend the mechanism if we did not have to.

> > +SHA-1 is not accepted as a hash algorithm in mailmaps.
> 
> Is this needed to be said?  After all, we won't take @md5: or
> @blake2: or anything other than @sha256: in this version (and
> probably any forseeable versions).  Unless we offer a way to plug-in
> algos of projects' choice, that is, and at that point, "SHA-1 is not
> accepted" is a statement too strong for us to make.