any real-world SHA-256 repo users out there?

any real-world SHA-256 repo users out there?

[Eric Wong]

Hey all, just wondering if it's something I should prioritize
adding support for in some git-using project I hack on...

Of course, I'm not dropping SHA-1 support.  So I'm wondering if
I should wait for (or hack on :P) git to handle both SHA-256 and
SHA-1 in one process; or if it's something I'd be better off
managing via multiple (git cat-file --batch) processes.  No OIDs
are abbreviated, so it's just 20/40 vs 32/64.

I actually started an entirely new project in May 2021 using
SHA-256 and the only problem I've encountered (now fixed) was
with HTTP(S) clones.  I still haven't publicized that new
project, yet (I keep getting brain farts and side-tracked with
other stuff...)

Re: any real-world SHA-256 repo users out there?

[brian m. carlson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1304 bytes --]

On 2022-04-03 at 08:42:58, Eric Wong wrote:
> Hey all, just wondering if it's something I should prioritize
> adding support for in some git-using project I hack on...
> 
> Of course, I'm not dropping SHA-1 support.  So I'm wondering if
> I should wait for (or hack on :P) git to handle both SHA-256 and
> SHA-1 in one process; or if it's something I'd be better off
> managing via multiple (git cat-file --batch) processes.  No OIDs
> are abbreviated, so it's just 20/40 vs 32/64.

Git can already use one binary to handle SHA-1 and SHA-256 repositories
and has been able to since Git 2.29 (although 2.30 has some fixes you
should use). It just doesn't provide interop at this point, and I'm only
working on it as I find time, so I wouldn't hold your breath for it.

I have some indefinite plans to improve the support for SHA-1/SHA-256
interop in the future, as well as port SHA-256 support to libgit2, but
those are dependent on some things which are not certain (but very
likely) to occur.

I strongly encourage folks to add SHA-256 repository support to tooling
since it's likely going to become more popular in the future.  I have
some local SHA-256 repositories on my systems and they appear to work
fine.
-- 
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

RE: any real-world SHA-256 repo users out there?

[rsbecker]

On April 3, 2022 1:36 PM, brian m. carlson wrote:
>On 2022-04-03 at 08:42:58, Eric Wong wrote:
>> Hey all, just wondering if it's something I should prioritize adding
>> support for in some git-using project I hack on...
>>
>> Of course, I'm not dropping SHA-1 support.  So I'm wondering if I
>> should wait for (or hack on :P) git to handle both SHA-256 and
>> SHA-1 in one process; or if it's something I'd be better off managing
>> via multiple (git cat-file --batch) processes.  No OIDs are
>> abbreviated, so it's just 20/40 vs 32/64.
>
>Git can already use one binary to handle SHA-1 and SHA-256 repositories and has
>been able to since Git 2.29 (although 2.30 has some fixes you should use). It just
>doesn't provide interop at this point, and I'm only working on it as I find time, so I
>wouldn't hold your breath for it.
>
>I have some indefinite plans to improve the support for SHA-1/SHA-256 interop in
>the future, as well as port SHA-256 support to libgit2, but those are dependent on
>some things which are not certain (but very
>likely) to occur.
>
>I strongly encourage folks to add SHA-256 repository support to tooling since it's
>likely going to become more popular in the future.  I have some local SHA-256
>repositories on my systems and they appear to work fine.

Our tooling works correctly regardless of the choice of SHA-256, but have been waiting for GitHub et. al., to provide capabilities. I would welcome interoperability. What help do you need?

Regards,
Randall

Re: any real-world SHA-256 repo users out there?

[Junio C Hamano]

<rsbecker@nexbridge.com> writes:

>>I have some indefinite plans to improve the support for
>>SHA-1/SHA-256 interop in the future, as well as port SHA-256
>>support to libgit2, but those are dependent on some things which
>>are not certain (but very likely) to occur.

That is encouraging to hear.

SHA-256 interop is one of the things I want to see appear sooner
rather than later (it would be what I would answer to the popular
"Git Rev News" question, if I were interviewed).  I certainly would
want it to materialize before I retire ;-)

>>I strongly encourage folks to add SHA-256 repository support to
>>tooling since it's likely going to become more popular in the
>>future.  I have some local SHA-256 repositories on my systems and
>>they appear to work fine.
>
> Our tooling works correctly regardless of the choice of SHA-256,
> but have been waiting for GitHub et. al., to provide
> capabilities. I would welcome interoperability. What help do you
> need?