On 2/28/17, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > > Should the SHA3 hashes be SHA3-224 or > SHA3-256? In my view, the extra computation and storage overhead for > SHA3-256 is minimal and should not present a barrier. However, the > extra 8 characters of hash from SHA3-256 do seem to introduce UI > challenges.
Who says we have to display all 64 digits of a SHA2-256 hash in the UI? For that matter, why do we need to display more than the first 40 digits. As long as the full 256-bit hash is recorded internally, any collisions in the first 40 digits are easily detected with a simple query. So my current thinking is: (1) Fossil 2.x will support only two hashes: SHA1 for legacy and SHA3-256 for new check-ins. (2) Usually only the first 40 digits of SHA3 hashes will be displayed, especially on space-constrained tty output. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
