Hi, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Thu, 23 Aug 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>> Are we going to need a midx version of these mapping files? How does >>> midx fit into this picture? Perhaps it's too obscure to worry about... >> >> That's a great question! I think the simplest answer is to have a >> midx only for the primary object format and fall back to using >> ordinary idx files for the others. >> >> The midx format already has a field for hash function (thanks, >> Derrick!). > > Related: I wondered whether we could simply leverage the midx code for the > bidirectional SHA-1 <-> SHA-256 mapping, as it strikes me as very similar > in concept and challenges. Interesting: tell me more. My first instinct is to prefer the idx-based design that is already described in the design doc. If we want to change that, we should have a motivating reason. Midx is designed to be optional and to not necessarily cover all objects, so it doesn't seem like a good fit. Thanks, Jonathan
