On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 08:16:15AM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 1:14 AM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote: > > Is there a plan for upgrading to a better hash function in the future? > > (E.g., should it become an urgent need.) > > > > What are the roadblocks to adoption of a replacement hash function? > > Just documenting this would go a long way towards making it possible > > to upgrade some day. > > The biggest obstacle is the assumption of SHA-1 everywhere in the > source code (e.g. assume the object name always takes 20 bytes). Brian > started on cleaning that up [1] but I think it's stalled. Then we need > to deal with upgrade path for SHA-1 repos.
Yes, it is stalled. It ended up being a Herculean task, so when I pick up the patch series again, I'll probably submit changes in chunks to avoid the huge amount of code churn required. I feel the list and Junio in particular will appreciate that more. -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
