Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/32] SHA256 and SHA1 interoperability

From: "Eric W. Biederman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2023 11:13:27 -0500

Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:

> "Eric W. Biederman" <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> I would like to see the SHA256 transition happen so I started playing
>> with the k2204-transition-interop branch of brian m. carlson's tree.
>
> I needed these tweaks to build the series standalone on 'master' (or
> 2.42).  There are semantic merge conflicts with some topics in flight
> when this is merged to 'seen', so it may take me a bit more time to
> push the integration result.

Junio, brian for the very warm reception of this, it is very
encouraging.

I am not worried about what it will take time to get the changes I
posted into the integration.  I had only envisioned them as good enough
to get the technical ideas across, and had never envisioned them as
being accepted as is.

What I am envisioning as my future directions are:

- Post non controversial cleanups, so they can be merged.
  (I can only see about 4 of them the most significant is:
   bulk-checkin: Only accept blobs)

- Sort out the configuration options

- Post the smallest patchset I can that will allow testing the code in
  object-file-convert.c.  Unfortunately for that I need configuration
  options to enable the mapping.

  In starting to write the tests I have already found a bug in
  the conversion of tags (an extra newline is added), and I haven't
  even gotten to testing the tricky bits with signatures.

- Once the object file conversion is tested and is solid work on
  the more substantial pieces.

Does that sound like a reasonable plan?

Eric