On Fri, 24 Feb 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
*1* In the above toy example, length being 40 vs 64 is used as a
sign between SHA-1 and the new hash, and careful readers may
wonder if we should use sha-3,20769079d22... or something like
that that more explicity identifies what hash is used, so that
we can pick a hash whose length is 64 when we transition again.
I personally do not think such a prefix is necessary during the
first transition; we will likely to adopt a new hash again, and
at that point that third one can have a prefix to differenciate
it from the second one.
as the saying goes "in computer science the interesting numbers are 0, 1, and
many", does it really simplify things much to support 2 hashes vs supporting
more so that this issue doesn't have to be revisited? (other than selecting new
hashes over time)
David Lang
