From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Cc: <git@vger.kernel.org>, Adam Dinwoodie <adam@dinwoodie.org>,
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] setup: default hash algo to GIT_HASH_DEFAULT
Date: Sun, 08 Nov 2026 10:22:22 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqik274201.fsf@gitster.g> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261108011633.1772000-1-sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> (brian m. carlson's message of "Sun, 8 Nov 2026 01:16:33 +0000")
"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
> When we have no other hash algorithm to choose, we set no hash
> algorithm, which ends up with us defaulting to SHA-1. Instead, default
> to GIT_HASH_DEFAULT. This means that we will choose SHA-256 in breaking
> changes mode and in Git 3.0, which is what we want.
>
> Reported-by: Adam Dinwoodie <adam@dinwoodie.org>
> Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
> ---
> setup.c | 2 ++
> t/t0001-init.sh | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/setup.c b/setup.c
> index 61bcdafe82..4a0dfc8908 100644
> --- a/setup.c
> +++ b/setup.c
> @@ -2830,6 +2830,8 @@ static void repository_format_configure(struct repository_format *repo_fmt,
> repo_fmt->hash_algo = env_algo;
> } else if (cfg.hash != GIT_HASH_UNKNOWN) {
> repo_fmt->hash_algo = cfg.hash;
> + } else {
> + repo_fmt->hash_algo = GIT_HASH_DEFAULT;
> }
Hmph, maybe I am not reading the code flow correctly, but does this
not break running "git init" to reinitialize an already initialized
repository? I mimicked the new test in your patch and wrote the
following just immediately after it, which
* figures out our hash and the other hash
* create a new repository with the "other" hash
* run "git init" without specifying any hash
It is debatable what should happen when you run "git init" from Git
3.0 without any specialization in an existing SHA-1 repository.
Possibilities include:
1. turn an existing SHA-1 repository into SHA-256 including format
conversion.
2. notice that the repository is already set up to use the SHA-1
format, and that the user did not explicitly say what format to
use, and behave as if --object-format=sha1 were given with a
notice or warning.
3. notice that the repository is already set up to use the SHA-1
format, but our default format is SHA-256. Because the user did
not countermand via an explicit --object-format=sha1 on the
command line, we should fail loudly, "cannot convert this SHA-1
repository to SHA-256".
I think #1 is impractical, #2 is probably the best, and #3 would
also be reasonable.
But the behaviour I am seeing with
$ make WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES=YesPlease
$ cd t && WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES=YesPlease sh t0001-init.sh -i -v
with the additional patch is different from any of the three (well,
technically, because the repository is empty, we _could_ argue that
we did #1, but ...).
I wonder what the "git init" command does wrt the reference storage
format (Patrick CC'ed for this)? I am sure we do not convert from
reffiles to reftable on the fly at "git init" time.
diff --git i/t/t0001-init.sh w/t/t0001-init.sh
index bc30cf853b..1d48a712ae 100755
--- i/t/t0001-init.sh
+++ w/t/t0001-init.sh
@@ -532,6 +532,31 @@ test_expect_success 'git init uses default object format' '
)
'
+test_expect_success 'git (re)init does not clobber object format' '
+ test_when_finished "rm -rf repo" &&
+ (
+ sane_unset GIT_DEFAULT_HASH &&
+ if test_have_prereq WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES
+ then
+ ours=sha256 opposite=sha1
+ else
+ ours=sha1 opposite=sha256
+ fi &&
+
+ # initialize to non-default format
+ git init --object-format=$opposite repo &&
+ git -C repo rev-parse --show-object-format >actual &&
+ echo "$opposite" >expect &&
+ test_cmp expect actual &&
+
+ # reinitialize without configuration
+ git init repo &&
+ git -C repo rev-parse --show-object-format >actual &&
+ echo "$opposite" >expect &&
+ test_cmp expect actual
+ )
+'
+
test_expect_success 'init honors GIT_DEFAULT_HASH' '
test_when_finished "rm -rf sha1 sha256" &&
GIT_DEFAULT_HASH=sha1 git init sha1 &&
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-08 18:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-06 16:50 Default object format for new repositories in Git v3 Adam Dinwoodie
2026-11-06 20:46 ` brian m. carlson
2026-11-08 1:16 ` [PATCH] setup: default hash algo to GIT_HASH_DEFAULT brian m. carlson
2026-11-08 4:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-11-08 14:38 ` brian m. carlson
2026-11-08 18:22 ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2026-11-09 2:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2026-11-09 9:54 ` Patrick Steinhardt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=xmqqik274201.fsf@gitster.g \
--to=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=adam@dinwoodie.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ps@pks.im \
--cc=sandals@crustytoothpaste.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.