Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/32] SHA256 and SHA1 interoperability

Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] writes:

"Eric W. Biederman" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

I would like to see the SHA256 transition happen so I started playing
with the k2204-transition-interop branch of brian m. carlson's tree.

I needed these tweaks to build the series standalone on 'master' (or
2.42).  There are semantic merge conflicts with some topics in flight
when this is merged to 'seen', so it may take me a bit more time to
push the integration result.

Junio, brian for the very warm reception of this, it is very
encouraging.

I am not worried about what it will take time to get the changes I
posted into the integration.  I had only envisioned them as good enough
to get the technical ideas across, and had never envisioned them as
being accepted as is.

What I am envisioning as my future directions are:

- Post non controversial cleanups, so they can be merged.
  (I can only see about 4 of them the most significant is:
   bulk-checkin: Only accept blobs)

- Sort out the configuration options

- Post the smallest patchset I can that will allow testing the code in
  object-file-convert.c.  Unfortunately for that I need configuration
  options to enable the mapping.

  In starting to write the tests I have already found a bug in
  the conversion of tags (an extra newline is added), and I haven't
  even gotten to testing the tricky bits with signatures.

- Once the object file conversion is tested and is solid work on
  the more substantial pieces.

Does that sound like a reasonable plan?

Eric