[0/5] more SHA-256 documentation

Message

Martin Ågren Aug. 14, 2020, 12:21 p.m. UTC

Hi brian,

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 00:49, brian m. carlson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> As was pointed out recently, some of our documentation doesn't properly
> reflect the new support for SHA-256.  This series updates the pack and
> index documentation to reflect that these formats can handle SHA-256,
> and updates the transition plan to reflect what we've implemented and
> what the next steps are.

Thanks, this looks great. Now we're making clear what it is we intend to
be doing.

What about these additional patches on top? These are based on my
understanding, but hopefully they're not *too* wrong. I'm a bit hesitant
about the final patch and it would be interesting to know what you
think.

Martin Ågren (5):
  http-protocol.txt: document SHA-256 "want"/"have" format
  index-format.txt: document SHA-256 index format
  protocol-capabilities.txt: clarify "allow-x-sha1-in-want" re SHA-256
  shallow.txt: document SHA-256 shallow format
  commit-graph-format.txt: fix "Hash Version" description

 .../technical/commit-graph-format.txt         |  4 +--
 Documentation/technical/http-protocol.txt     |  5 ++--
 Documentation/technical/index-format.txt      | 27 ++++++++++---------
 .../technical/protocol-capabilities.txt       | 11 +++++---
 Documentation/technical/shallow.txt           |  2 +-
 5 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

Comments

brian m. carlson Aug. 14, 2020, 8:28 p.m. UTC | #1

On 2020-08-14 at 12:21:41, Martin Ågren wrote:
> Hi brian,
> 
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 00:49, brian m. carlson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > As was pointed out recently, some of our documentation doesn't properly
> > reflect the new support for SHA-256.  This series updates the pack and
> > index documentation to reflect that these formats can handle SHA-256,
> > and updates the transition plan to reflect what we've implemented and
> > what the next steps are.
> 
> Thanks, this looks great. Now we're making clear what it is we intend to
> be doing.
> 
> What about these additional patches on top? These are based on my
> understanding, but hopefully they're not *too* wrong. I'm a bit hesitant
> about the final patch and it would be interesting to know what you
> think.

I think Stolee has a series so that the final patch isn't necessary, and
other than the things he mentioned in this thread, I think these would
be fine on top.