Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> writes: > Hi Junio, > > On Mon, 18 Jul 2016, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> "brian m. carlson" <sand...@crustytoothpaste.net> writes: >> >> > I will say that the pack format will likely require some changes, >> > because it assumes ... The reason is that we can't have an >> > unambiguous parse of the current objects if two hash algorithms are in >> > use.... So when we look at a new hash, we need to provide an >> > unambiguous way to know what hash is in use. The two choices are to >> > either require all object use the new hash, or to extend the objects >> > to include the hash. Until a couple days ago, I had planned to do the >> > former. I had not even considered using a multihash approach due to >> > the complexity. >> >> Objects in Git identify themselves, but once you introduce the second >> hash function (as opposed to replacing the hash function to a new one), >> you would allow people to call the same object by two names. That has >> interesting implications. >> >> [...] > > So essentially you are saying that the multi-hash approach has too many > negative implications, right? At least that is what I understand. > > Looks more and more like we do need to convert repositories wholesale, and > keep a two-way mapping for talking to remote repositories. > > Would you concur?
Not necessarily. That was me thinking aloud, listing some issues that I would imagine to be tricky to solve, without even attempting to be exhaustive, that I expect to see solved in a good end-result implementation. For example, "I do not see a nice way to solve X myself without doing Y" in the message you are responding to does not necessarily mean there is no good solution to X (just "I do not think of any offhand"), and it does not mean I think it is terrible that we have to do Y to solve X. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
