From: Nicolas Pitre Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:33:22 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] make the new block-sha1 the default Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vprakpett.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On Mon, 24 Aug 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King writes: > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:04:37PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > >> ... and remove support for linking against the openssl SHA1 code. > >> > >> The block-sha1 implementation is not significantly worse and sometimes > >> even faster than the openssl SHA1 implementation. This allows for > > > > Is there a reason not to leave the option of linking against openssl? > > I think it is a valid question. Why remove the _option_? Indeed, there is no value in limiting the choice. > I would certainly understand it if you made BLK_SHA1 the _default_, though. Since this is a RFC, and because this is not a clear choice, I'll simply let others play with it and see for themselves. Suffice to compile git with or without NO_OPENSSL defined. Some people (such as Jeff) are finding the openssl SHA1 faster (irrespective of the -O0 issue), whereas Linus simply hammered on the block-sha1 version until it was faster than openssl for him (this is faster for me as well, on X86 and ARM). Also those who initially found openssl to put a significant overhead on the dynamic linking should probably perform more measurements with and without NO_OPENSSL again. If more positive results are presented then changing the default might make sense. Nicolas