3 ms·
Why would they support it? The article clearly states it is nowhere close to being useful yet. It is untested, unstable code that can only write to repositorie
by freddie_mercury 7y ago
Why would they support it? The article clearly states it is nowhere close to being useful yet.
It is untested, unstable code that can only write to repositories and not read them.
"Much of the work to implement the SHA‑256 transition has been done, but it remains in a relatively unstable state and most of it is not even being actively tested yet. In mid-January, carlson posted the first part of this transition code, which clearly only solves part of the problem:
"First, it contains the pieces necessary to set up repositories and write _but not read_ extensions.objectFormat. In other words, you can create a SHA‑256 repository, but will be unable to read it. "
- sandGorgon 7y agoactually - i might have worded it confusingly. For smaller projects (like my own), can i move to sha-256 with no expectation of backward compatibility today ?
- SAI_Peregrinus 7y ago"First, it contains the pieces necessary to set up repositories and write _but not read_ extensions.objectFormat. In other words, you can create a SHA‑256 repository, but will be unable to read it. " If you want it to be write-only, sure, go ahead!