Re: [doc] User Manual Suggestion
- From
Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
- Date
- Apr 25, 2009, 18:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <alpine.LNX.2.00.0904251445030.2147@iabervon.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <b4087cc50904241626h166c6b3bqa4ec714d4cb5662a@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Michael Witten wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> > And the term is already in use for this particular case, > > and it doesn't mean anything else at all (since, of course, the crypto > > thing is "SHA-1", not "sha1"), and it's short (which is important for > > making it easy to look at usage help). > > What happens when SHA-1 is shown to be broken or there is a better > alternative? Then we'll see "sha1 for historical reasons"... bleh!
Why do you think SHA-1 has anything to do with it? Git's sha1s could just as easily be 160 bits of a SHA-256 hash and there wouldn't be any user-visible difference. The term doesn't imply any particular significant connection to a particular algorithm. It could be like "pencil lead", which has never been made of lead, but is called that for no particularly important reason.
-Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*