4 ms·
That's not the plan. That was an idea that was thrown out if this was an emergency (it's handling different length hashes, and doing so that we don't have to
by tytso 10y ago
That's not the plan. That was an idea that was thrown out if this was an emergency (it's handling different length hashes, and doing so that we don't have to force a flag day conversion which is hard), but once people realized that in fact, the sky was not following, the plan which Linus outlined in his G+ post was devised --- which does not involve truncating a 256-bit hash.
- bascule 10y agoCan you please link me to "the plan" then? I have been trying to follow some of the ML discussion and that was the last plan I saw him put forth, e.g.: https://marc.info/?l=git&m=148787047422954 https://marc.info/?l=git&m=148787047422954
- pedrocr 10y agoBy clicking "next in thread" in that very post you get Linus replying to himself with a non-truncating plan: https://marc.info/?l=git&m=148787163023435&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=git&m=148787163023435&w=2
- bascule 10y agoThanks for the link. Re: snark, I did hit "next in thread" but managed to skim over that in his response. But again, thanks anyway. (Note: this still sounds more like spitballing than "the plan", but at least it's a step in the right direction)
- greglindahl 10y agoDo you have any insight into the sha-256 vs sha-512 choice?
- eslaught 10y agoCan you link the new plan? I didn't see it described in his G+ post.
- yawaramin 10y agoThe G+ post was not meant to describe the plan, it was an overview of the situation for git users who aren't necessarily security experts. The plan is outlined at https://marc.info/?l=git&m=148787163023435&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=git&m=148787163023435&w=2
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]