Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> writes:
> Regardless of how we spell it in prose, I think `sha256` as an
> identifier in configuration is the spelling people will expect. For
> example, gpg ("gpg --version") calls it SHA256.
OK.
> For what it's worth, I would be in favor of modifying the section
> more heavily. For example:
> ...
> Changes:
>
> - retitled since the hash function has already been selected
> - added some notes about sha1dc
> - when discussing wide implementation availability, mentioned
> CommonCrypto too, as an example of a non-OpenSSL library that the
> libgit2 authors care about
> - named which function is chosen
>
> We could put the runners up in the "alternatives considered" section,
> but I don't think there's much to say about them here so I wouldn't.
All interesting ideas and good suggestions. I'll leave 2/2 in the
mail archive and take only 1/2 for now. I'd expect the final
version, not too soon after mulling over the suggestions raised
here, but not in too distant future to prevent us from forgetting
;-)
Thanks.
