Re: Which hash function to use, was Re: RFC: Another proposed hash function transition plan

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 16, 2017, 20:52 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq37azy7ru.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9PXLxMHG1nP5_GQaK_WSJTNKs=_qbaL6V5v2GzVG=9VU2+gA@mail.gmail.com>

Adam Langley <agl@google.com> writes:

> However, as I'm not a git developer, I've no opinion on whether the
> cost of carrying implementations of these functions is worth the speed
> vs using SHA-256, which can be assumed to be supported everywhere
> already.

Thanks.

My impression from this thread is that even though fast may be better than slow, ubiquity trumps it for our use case, as long as the thing is not absurdly and unusably slow, of course. Which makes me lean towards something older/more established like SHA-256, and it would be a very nice bonus if it gets hardware acceleration more widely than others ;-)

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.