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

From: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Date: Sep 11, 2023, 22:05 UTC
Message-ID: <ZP+PKa3N1N1PXROM@tapette.crustytoothpaste.net>
In-Reply-To: <87cyyoeli0.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>

On 2023-09-11 at 16:13:27, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> 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.

I wonder if unit tests are a possibility here now that we're starting to use them. They're not obligatory, of course, but it may be more convenient for you if they turn out to be a suitable option. If not, no big deal.

> - Once the object file conversion is tested and is solid work on
>   the more substantial pieces.
> 
> Does that sound like a reasonable plan?

Yeah, that seems fine.

-- 
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA