4 ms·
> changing from SHA-1 to SHA-256 for greater security Linus has a different view, he referred to the SHA-256 migration as "pointless churn": https://www.youtu
by sam_lowry_ 11mo ago
> changing from SHA-1 to SHA-256 for greater security
Linus has a different view, he referred to the SHA-256 migration as "pointless churn": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCr_gb8rdEI?t=11m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCr_gb8rdEI?t=11m
SHA-1 is not broken enough to be a serious issue for git. The migration to SHA-256 has been forced by on git by clueless morons, and it is, in this very special way, similar to the master-main rename.
- adastra22 11mo agoOnly if you don't have any pdf files in your repo.
- PikachuEXE 11mo agoAlso wonders if SHA-384 or SHA-256 would be more "future proofing" or whatever the points the supporters making
- 1718627440 11mo agoWill Git produce repos with both SHA1 and SHA256 commits, or is this a per repo thing?
- sam_lowry_ 11mo agoAFAIR, git is now kind of hash function agnostic, although SHA-256 is the only one there in practice.
- 1718627440 11mo agoHow does Git know which hash type a given hash is? Is there a prefix, that is just never shown?