Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> I said this is OK for "null" because we assume we will use ^\0{len}$
> for any hash function we choose as the "impossible" value, and for
> that particular use pattern, we do not need such a union. Just
> letting the caller peek at an appropriate number of bytes at the
> beginning of that NUL buffer for hash the caller wants to use is
> sufficient.
Do you think I should record this explanation as either commit message
or comment in sha1_file.c?
> MAX is inevitable only if we envision that we have to handle objects
> named using two or more hashing schemes at the same time, with the
> same binary and during the same run inside a single process.
I think this will be the case if "transition one local repository at
a time" from Jonathan Nieder's transition plan will be followed.
This plan assumes object_id translation happening e.g. during fetch
operation.
--
| ← Ceci n'est pas une pipe
Patryk Obara
