On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 09:45:52AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <ava...@gmail.com> writes: > > > @@ -125,19 +122,19 @@ Detailed Design > > --------------- > > Repository format extension > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -A NewHash repository uses repository format version `1` (see > > +A SHA-256 repository uses repository format version `1` (see > > Documentation/technical/repository-version.txt) with extensions > > `objectFormat` and `compatObjectFormat`: > > > > [core] > > repositoryFormatVersion = 1 > > [extensions] > > - objectFormat = newhash > > + objectFormat = sha256 > > compatObjectFormat = sha1 > > Whenever we said SHA1, somebody came and told us that the name of > the hash is SHA-1 (with dash). Would we be nitpicker-prone in the > same way with "sha256" here?
I actually have a patch to make the names "sha1" and "sha256". My rationale is that it's shorter and easier to type. People can quibble about it when I send it to the list, but that's what I'm proposing at least. -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
