From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b3-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b3-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.154]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1E16128468C for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 14:46:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.154 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751467615; cv=none; b=jVhuG7Sg3egxzZ3SbpzfxekL9Jzu8Lhgld/5CNTI6rZ6Sz1fbf2/cOBmmfRYkRVe98C3+6JLDeoe8Oo0CHpzxLyE1WNMfDrtdFE05FRVKBvqJll6Qftp5BbYnLtFcZLx87HU7OCLNPJLR2xV6QiIH9tJqylneD7miaahiC+07tc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1751467615; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AVz/HKMYg84Mt3Zfugn+o13f6LGF5/w/qv224E4yrmk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=FiFAyMhzOBeDa99HEjKKX2R2tD7dpMqASmNIjryI007cCpM7LGpnsZ0EeqOuG01MrQ1w8Ky8hrdphWTIo7mj9ms9T3qE6SX7Jj/DeazwXiNEKwbC750kj5lrm1GtAZxB8m6jxY9ftv6Rh1+ez+3mWTspw4zglWVSvNtrieQA6os= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=U00j4d0B; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=lFYyYd2o; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.154 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="U00j4d0B"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="lFYyYd2o" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.phl.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8CEA7A0285; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 10:46:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-02 ([10.202.2.163]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 02 Jul 2025 10:46:51 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1751467611; x=1751554011; bh=+zRJxtmDqV IvyX4zzX5JcUy9HI3ncZkCg2oe5drbI5k=; b=U00j4d0B3POkSUTab6meBHD+CM 7og/mrt8TksEFRXj9tXNluC+eG5zb1DQWJHEgjdjzMLNGw5ldSJ4IONYYh++P1e4 3U093CVYWx539ydoC2G7JnHhSV9FBF0Xbr1oeWUAHdCj1XA1H5yMJdyy64VkzJX6 yh3Z/RXab6CxFX/UBlmAb8X22tWaVH000LdHaSpTFHlqxwZWUi2cL60pTWVHgyuh 6GoezQPIKhVYEVuwoDPusFSgvttZDdB6juJQMpM3jZlNsXGcHb8SYkLP0a5wby6D DwEPwTvcXzTU4C9lS0UoxmBaGdfXOFRlvKAarx2jQOU3jMZKeXkwWe0SzXhQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1751467611; x=1751554011; bh=+zRJxtmDqVIvyX4zzX5JcUy9HI3ncZkCg2o e5drbI5k=; b=lFYyYd2oggDR+E/pPGSo9xBQBDTrWhylLcPfKh+wncmcuMh1hdl amsH+FS2IWTN6dlW8k28Lz3sfz1JaKpclowIhdEPiGIvGKCxCQ/Ecgq5wT0ICbXR s2iD8MTc7a6pl90rJO3X5Mb7J7NSa3eiMa2vgIgYBxq5Zul04TgVvXu6tGcZezAk P9WC7IuitiBY4cR3FLG8Zg3GFnvXbmUR+cfbQN4I3lnvyn70wUyFlWUvUNVdIzeQ VEuBsJC2AuVUPU88I5BCNwHYgZv6bDopBLtVcIRsTSuOez+xyW6F7ZxoIEp4OLaQ WbJyQlXCsNMHaF3PJsY6vkvwFEYFvygNJbw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdefgddujeeijecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecuuegr ihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtredttd dtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgrthhrihgtkhcuufhtvghinhhhrghrughtuceophhssehpkhhs rdhimheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepveekkeffhfeitdeludeigfejtdetvdelvdduhe fgueegudfghfeukefhjedvkedtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghm pehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhssehpkhhsrdhimhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepfedpmhhoug gvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgvlhdrohhr ghdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtshhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepsh grnhgurghlshestghruhhsthihthhoohhthhhprghsthgvrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 10:46:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id ea3423b2 (TLSv1.3:TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256:256:NO); Wed, 2 Jul 2025 14:46:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 16:46:44 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: "brian m. carlson" Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/11] Add SHA-256 by default as a breaking change Message-ID: References: <20250620011943.586596-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> <20250701212237.766774-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250701212237.766774-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> On Tue, Jul 01, 2025 at 09:22:26PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > Our breaking changes document outlines that Git 3.0 will make SHA-256 > the default hash algorithm, which is a sensible and prudent approach, > especially from a security perspective. However, we haven't tested this > adequately and it would be helpful to allow users to test this behaviour > so their code and environments are ready for it. > > Fortunately, c5bc9a7f94 (Makefile: wire up build option for deprecated > features, 2025-01-22) introduces a build option that we can use for > testing breaking changes: WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES. This series introduces > functionality for SHA-256 by default in this mode so we can test it out. > > Changes since v1: > * Add a build option for the default hash and use it in the tests. > * Rename GIT_HASH_ORIGINAL to GIT_HASH_SHA1_LEGACY. > * Improve some of the commit messages to better explain questions that > have come up for review. > * Improve formatting of nested C preprocessor directives. I looked specifically for the things that I commented on, all of which seem to have been addressed. Given that there is no range diff I trust that there aren't any other unexpected changes. So this iteration looks good to me, and I think that this series is a step into the right direction overall. Patrick