On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Sitaram Chamarty <sitar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jokes apart, I'm not sure the chances of *both* those things happening > -- an accidental hash-like string in the text *and* it matching an > existing hash -- are high enough to bother. If it can be done without > too much code, it probably should.
To be fair to the original implementor, I think we didn't have an API to ask "do we have a committish object with this name?" with an abbreviated SHA-1. All we had was "do we have an object with this name?". As the only answer the command can give is an exteneded SHA-1 for committish, it is understandable that hitting blobs and trees (which typically are much more numerous than committishes) with false positives would have been a real risk the implementation wanted to avoid. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
