From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 15:23:28 GMT
Subject: Re: RFC v3: Another proposed hash function transition plan
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1.1709141722500.4132@virtualbox>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqpoauyqlp.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Hi Junio,

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > In other words, a long lifetime for the hash absolutely is a design
> > goal.  Coping well with an unexpectedly short lifetime for the hash is
> > also a design goal.
> >
> > If the hash function lasts 10 years then I am happy.
> 
> Absolutely.  When two functions have similar expected remaining life
> and are equally widely supported, then faster is better than slower.
> Otherwise our primary goal when picking the function from candidates
> should be to optimize for its remaining life and wider availability.

SHA-256 has been hammered on a lot more than SHA3-256.

That would be a strong point in favor of SHA2.

Ciao,
Dscho