sha-1 mismatch using command line sha1sum

Hello,

I came across this message:

http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/archives/git/0504/0212.html

So I thought, "hey that's interesting, I'll try it".  I was surprised to find 
this:

$ sha1sum .git/objects/f4/b6c6b90fdce12d69e4ad80ff6082405ec8cfb8 
ac4c6f1d36d6e0341486789b32f86ae6f506df35  .git/objects/f4/b6c6b90fdce12d69e4ad80ff6082405ec8cfb8

This is in the latest git repository.

Is this correct, or should we all begin screaming and crying that our 
repositories are woefully corrupt? :-)



Andy
-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIEE
andyparkins@gmail.com

On 16/01/07, Andy Parkins [off-list ref] wrote:

Hello,

I came across this message:

http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/archives/git/0504/0212.html

So I thought, "hey that's interesting, I'll try it".  I was surprised to find
this:

$ sha1sum .git/objects/f4/b6c6b90fdce12d69e4ad80ff6082405ec8cfb8
ac4c6f1d36d6e0341486789b32f86ae6f506df35  .git/objects/f4/b6c6b90fdce12d69e4ad80ff6082405ec8cfb8

This is in the latest git repository.

Is this correct, or should we all begin screaming and crying that our
repositories are woefully corrupt? :-)

That changed some time ago. From the git(7) manpage:

"It's worth noting that the SHA1 hash that is used to name the object
is the hash of the original data plus this header, so sha1sum file
does not match the object name for file. (Historical note: in the dawn
of the age of git the hash was the sha1 of the compressed object.)"

Cheers,
Baz

Andy Parkins wrote:

Hello,

I came across this message:

http://www.gelato.unsw.edu.au/archives/git/0504/0212.html

So I thought, "hey that's interesting, I'll try it".  I was surprised to find 
this:

$ sha1sum .git/objects/f4/b6c6b90fdce12d69e4ad80ff6082405ec8cfb8 
ac4c6f1d36d6e0341486789b32f86ae6f506df35  .git/objects/f4/b6c6b90fdce12d69e4ad80ff6082405ec8cfb8

This is in the latest git repository.

Is this correct, or should we all begin screaming and crying that our 
repositories are woefully corrupt? :-)

sha-1 sum of _uncompressed_ object.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

On Tuesday 2007 January 16 13:50, Baz wrote:

That changed some time ago. From the git(7) manpage:

Oh good.  I have to admit, I started sweating a bit at the thought that the 
hashes might be wrong :-)  I should know better; git is infalliable :-)


Andy
-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIEE
andyparkins@gmail.com