Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes

Brandon Williams writes: > On 03/26, Jeff Hostetler wrote: [...] >> All of these cases could be eliminated if the type/size were available >> in the OID. >> >> Just a thought. While we are converting to a new hash it seems like >> this would be a good time to at least

Re: Including object type and size in object id (Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes)

Jonathan Nieder writes: > This implies a limit on the object size (e.g. 5 bytes in your > example). What happens when someone wants to encode an object larger > than that limit? > > This also decreases the number of bits available for the hash, but > that shouldn't be a big

Re: Including object type and size in object id (Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes)

On 3/26/2018 5:00 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: Jeff Hostetler wrote: [long quote snipped] While we are converting to a new hash function, it would be nice if we could add a couple of fields to the end of the OID: the object type and the raw uncompressed object size. If would be nice if we

Re: Per-object encryption (Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes)

On Mon, Mar 26 2018, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Hi Ævar, > > Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> It occurred to me recently that once we have such a layer it could be >> (ab)used with some relatively minor changes to do any arbitrary >> local-to-remote object content translation, unless I've

Including object type and size in object id (Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes)

(administrivia: please omit parts of the text you are replying to that are not relevant to the reply. This makes it easier to see what you're replying to, especially in mail readers that don't hide quoted text by the default) Hi Jeff, Jeff Hostetler wrote: [long quote snipped] > While we are

Per-object encryption (Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes)

Hi Ævar, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > It occurred to me recently that once we have such a layer it could be > (ab)used with some relatively minor changes to do any arbitrary > local-to-remote object content translation, unless I've missed something > (but I just re-read

Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes

On 3/26/2018 1:56 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:33 AM Jeff Hostetler wrote: On 3/25/2018 6:58 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Sat, Mar 10 2018, Alex Vandiver wrote: New hash (Stefan, etc) -- - discussed on the

Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes

On 03/26, Jeff Hostetler wrote: > > > On 3/25/2018 6:58 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 10 2018, Alex Vandiver wrote: > > > > > New hash (Stefan, etc) > > > -- > > > - discussed on the mailing list > > > - actual plan checked in to > > >

Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:33 AM Jeff Hostetler wrote: > On 3/25/2018 6:58 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 10 2018, Alex Vandiver wrote: > > > >> New hash (Stefan, etc) > >> -- > >> - discussed on the mailing list > >> -

Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes

On 3/25/2018 6:58 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Sat, Mar 10 2018, Alex Vandiver wrote: New hash (Stefan, etc) -- - discussed on the mailing list - actual plan checked in to Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt - lots of work renaming -

Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes

On Sat, Mar 10 2018, Alex Vandiver wrote: > New hash (Stefan, etc) > -- > - discussed on the mailing list > - actual plan checked in to > Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt > - lots of work renaming > - any actual work with the transition plan? > -

Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes

On 03/12, Jeff King wrote: > On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 02:01:14PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > > > - (peff) Time to deprecate the git anonymous protocol? > > [...] > > > > I think the conclusion was that nobody cares about the git:// protocol, > > but people do care about it being

Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 02:01:14PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > > - (peff) Time to deprecate the git anonymous protocol? > [...] > > I think the conclusion was that nobody cares about the git:// protocol, > but people do care about it being super easy to spin up a server, and >

Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes

On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 04:06:18PM -0800, Alex Vandiver wrote: > It was great to meet some of you in person! Some notes from the > Contributor Summit at Git Merge are below. Taken in haste, so > my apologies if there are any mis-statements. Thanks very much for these notes! I think in future

Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes: > On Sat, Mar 10 2018, Alex Vandiver jotted: > >> It was great to meet some of you in person! Some notes from the >> Contributor Summit at Git Merge are below. Taken in haste, so >> my apologies if there are any mis-statements. > > Thanks a lot

Re: Git Merge contributor summit notes

On Sat, Mar 10 2018, Alex Vandiver jotted: > It was great to meet some of you in person! Some notes from the > Contributor Summit at Git Merge are below. Taken in haste, so > my apologies if there are any mis-statements. Thanks a lot for taking these notes. I've read them over and they're all

Git Merge contributor summit notes

It was great to meet some of you in person! Some notes from the Contributor Summit at Git Merge are below. Taken in haste, so my apologies if there are any mis-statements. - Alex "Does anyone think there's a