Re: Migrating away from SHA-1?

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> So a slightly nicer thing is to parameterize the algorithm for every
> object name reference. So commits look like:
>
>   tree sha256:1234abcd...
>   parent sha256:1234abcd...
>
> and so on. Of course trees don't have any space for this; they have a
> fixed-length for the hash part of each record, which is basically:
>
>   <mode> <name> NUL <20-byte-sha1>
>
> So we'd probably need a "treev2" object type that gives room for an
> algorithm byte (or we'd have to try to shove it into the mode, but since
> old versions won't know the new algorithm anyway, I don't think it
> solves that much...). Or you can just define for the whole tree object
> (either implicit in its type, or in a header) that it always uses
> algorithm X.

This will hurt the performance a lot during the transition period as
it no longer will be possible to rely on "most of the time a fine
grained commit changes only a small part of the tree, and we can
cheaply avoid descending into trees that haven't changed because we
can tell that the corresponding tree objects in the pre- and post-
trees have the same object name" optimization.  But we cannot avoid
it.

> Transitioning to that would be something like:
>
>   0. Overhaul all of the git code to handle arbitrary-sized object ids.
>
>   1. Decide on the new algorithm and implement it in git.
>
>   2. Recognize parameterized object ids in commits and tags (designing
>      format, implementing the reading side).
>
>   3. Recognize parameterized object ids somehow in trees (designing
>      format, implementing the reading side).
>
>   4. Teach the object database to index objects by the new algorithm (or
>      possibly both algorithms).
>
>   5. Add a protocol extension so that both sides can decide which
>      algorithm is being used when they talk about oids.
>
>   6. Add a config option to write references in objects using the new
>      algorithm.
>
>   7. After a while, flip the config option on. Hopefully the readers
>      from steps 1-5 have percolated to the masses by then, and it's not
>      a horrible flag day.
>
> We're basically on step 0 right now. I'm sure I'm missing some
> subtleties in there, too.

One subtlety is that 7. "not a flag day" may not be a good thing.

There has to be a section of a history that spans the transition,
set of commits and trees that have pointers to both kinds of object
names.  The narrower such a section of the history, the more
pleasant to use the result of the transition would be.

Different projects that can have their own flag days at their own
pace is a good thing, so the above observation does not invalidate
your transition plan, though.