Re: Gitorious should use CRC128 / 256 / 512 instead of SHA-1

From: Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org>
Date: Jan 13, 2023, 16:06 UTC
Message-ID: <a2e6fdc3-fbb0-821c-078f-1ad4e55dc8e3@selasky.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230113160218.d3nsoxpbrxrrszhz@meerkat.local>

On 1/13/23 17:02, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

> On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 04:54:39PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
>> On 1/13/23 16:45, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
>>>    If, for some reason, Linus ever needs to remove something
>>> from linux.git, he will do it and just give a heads-up why and for what
>>> reason.
>>
>> This gotta be a joke.
>>
>> There are 46K forks of Linus Torvalds Linux kernel on GitHUB, and if Linus
>> Torvalds one day decides to do a forced push, it will for sure be a
>> disaster!
> 
> No it won't, and I speak from some position of authority on this subject (I'm
> responsible for git.kernel.org).
> 
> If Linus has to alter the history of linux.git, it will for sure be an
> extraordinary event -- it's never happened yet.  However, it will be widely
> publicised, the reasons for it will be made clear, and everyone will just
> accept it and move on.
> 
> Git history edits occur all the time. Most tooling expects this to
> occasionally happen and deals with it correctly.
>

OK, if you say so. Though in my mind 46K rebases of millions of commits seem a lot overhead.

However, if history can be edited anyway, why do you need the cryptographic hash algorithm. Why not use a non-cryptographic one?

What's the point? Only so that one party can stay in control?

--HPS