Re: RFC: Another proposed hash function transition plan
- Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 03:59:26 -0500
- From: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: RFC: Another proposed hash function transition plan
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 10:39:49AM -0800, Jonathan Tan wrote:
> The "nohash" thing was in the hope of requiring only one signature to sign
> all the hashes (in all the functions) that the user wants, while preserving
> round-tripping ability.
Thanks, this explained it very well.
I understand the tradeoff now, though I am still of the opinion that
simplicity is probably a more important goal.
In practice I'd imagine that anybody doing commit-signing would just
sign the more-secure hash, and people doing tag releases would probably
do a dual-sign to be verifiable by both old and new clients. Those are
infrequent enough that the extra computation probably doesn't matter.
But that's just my gut feeling.