Re: [BUG] branch renamed to 'HEAD'

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:43:46AM +0530, Karthik Nayak wrote: > Hello, > > Thanks for reporting, but I don't think it is a bug. > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I just discover something which very much seems a bug

BENEFIT

You are a recipient to Mrs Julie Leach Donation of $3 million USD. Contact(julieleac...@gmail.com) for claims.

Re: [BUG] branch renamed to 'HEAD'

Hello, Thanks for reporting, but I don't think it is a bug. On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:22 AM, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > Hi, > > I just discover something which very much seems a bug to me > while making an error in renaming a branch. > The scenario is the

[BUG] branch renamed to 'HEAD'

Hi, I just discover something which very much seems a bug to me while making an error in renaming a branch. The scenario is the following: - I have a branch named 'orig' - I want to make some experimental changes on it: $ git checkout -b temp orig $ ... edit some files ...

Re: [PATCH] travis-ci: run scan-build every time

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Lars Schneider wrote: > >> On 26 Feb 2017, at 03:09, Samuel Lijin wrote: >> >> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Lars Schneider >> wrote: >>> On 24 Feb 2017, at 18:29, Samuel Lijin

Re: SHA1 collisions found

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 10:38:35PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > But yes, SHA3-256 looks like the sane choice. Performance of hashing > > is important in the sense that it shouldn't _suck_, but

Re: SHA1 collisions found

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > But yes, SHA3-256 looks like the sane choice. Performance of hashing > is important in the sense that it shouldn't _suck_, but is largely > secondary. All my profiles on real loads (well, *my* real loads) have

Re: SHA1 collisions found

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 07:57:19PM +0100, Thomas Braun wrote: > While reading about the subject I came across [1]. The author reduced > the hash size to 4bits and then played around with git. > > Diff taken from the posting (not my code) > --- git-2.7.0~rc0+next.20151210.orig/block-sha1/sha1.c >

Re: [PATCH v2] send-email: only allow one address per body tag

Junio C Hamano writes: > Matthieu Moy writes: > >> Johan Hovold writes: >> >>> --- a/git-send-email.perl >>> +++ b/git-send-email.perl >>> @@ -1563,7 +1563,7 @@ foreach my $t (@files) { >>> # Now parse the message body >>>

Re: SHA1 collisions found

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:38 AM, brian m. carlson wrote: > > SHA-256: > Common, but cryptanalysis has advanced. Preimage resistance (which is > even more important than collision resistance) has gotten to 52 of 64 > rounds. Pseudo-collision attacks are

Re: SHA1 collisions found

Am 25.02.2017 um 00:06 schrieb Jeff King: > So we don't actually know how Git would behave in the face of a SHA-1 > collision. It would be pretty easy to simulate it with something like: > > --- > diff --git a/block-sha1/sha1.c b/block-sha1/sha1.c > index 22b125cf8..1be5b5ba3 100644 > ---

Re: SHA1 collisions found

Jeff King writes: > Trees are more difficult, as they don't have any such field. But a valid > tree does need to start with a mode, so sticking some non-numeric flag > at the front of the object would work (it breaks backwards > compatibility, but that's kind of the point). Just

[PATCH v2] convert: add "status=delayed" to filter process protocol

Some `clean` / `smudge` filters might require a significant amount of time to process a single blob. During this process the Git checkout operation is blocked and Git needs to wait until the filter is done to continue with the checkout. Teach the filter process protocol (introduced in edcc858) to

Re: SHA1 collisions found

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:18:34AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 01:13:59AM +, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:10:01PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > I was thinking we would need mixed mode support for smoother > > > transition, but it now seems to

Re: SHA1 collisions found

Jeff King writes: > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 11:35:27PM +0100, Lars Schneider wrote: > ... >> That's a good idea! I wonder if it would make sense to setup an >> additional job in TravisCI that patches every Git version with some hash >> collisions and then runs special tests. > >

git-sha-x: idea for stronger cryptographic verification while keeping SHA1 content addresses

Hi, Related to shattered, the recent discussion, , the past , and Linus's post , the

Re: SHA1 collisions found

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:16:07AM +, Jason Cooper wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 01:31:32AM +0100, ankostis wrote: > > That is why I believe that some HASH (e.g. SHA-3) must be the blessed one. > > All git >= 3.x.x must support at least this one (for naming and > >

Re: SHA1 collisions found

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 07:09:44AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 02:26:56PM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > I looked at that earlier, because I think it's a reasonable idea for > > future-proofing. The first byte is a "varint", but I couldn't find where > > they defined that

Re: Reference for quote "creating branch is not the issue, merging is", in context of Subversion/Git

Hello Michael, On 26/02/2017 12:40, Michael Hüttermann wrote: > Linus Torvalds made a statement regarding merging/branching and stated > (as far as I know) that "creating branch is not the issue, merge is", in > context of Subversion/Git. > I do not find the origin source for that. Can you please

Re: [PATCH] travis-ci: run scan-build every time

> On 26 Feb 2017, at 03:09, Samuel Lijin wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Lars Schneider > wrote: >> >>> On 24 Feb 2017, at 18:29, Samuel Lijin wrote: >>> >>> It's worth noting that there seems to be a weird issue

Re: [PATCH v6 1/1] config: add conditional include

From: "Duy Nguyen" On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 5:08 AM, Philip Oakley wrote: +Conditional includes + + +You can include one config file from another conditionally by setting On first reading I thought this implied you can only have

Reference for quote "creating branch is not the issue, merging is", in context of Subversion/Git

Hello team, Linus Torvalds made a statement regarding merging/branching and stated (as far as I know) that "creating branch is not the issue, merge is", in context of Subversion/Git. I do not find the origin source for that. Can you please help and point me to a statement or article where

Unconventional roles of git

On 26 February 2017 at 02:13, Jason Cooper wrote: > As someone looking to deploy (and having previously deployed) git in > unconventional roles, I'd like to add ... We are developing a distributed storage for type approval files regarding all vehicles registered in

Re: [PATCH 1/5] grep: illustrate bug when recursing with relative pathspec

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 6:50 AM, Brandon Williams wrote: > When using the --recurse-submodules flag with a relative pathspec which > includes "..", an error is produced inside the child process spawned for > a submodule. When creating the pathspec struct in the child, the ".."