Patrick Steinhardt <ps@xxxxxx> writes: > So in theory, I don't really think there is anything that keeps us from > mixing object formats, and I even think that this is a necessary feature > to have once people start to migrate their repositories to SHA256. There > are people out there who use submodules, and it may not be feasible for > them to wait until all of their submodules have been converted to SHA256 > to migrate their own repositories. > ... > Anyway, that was a bit of a tangent to your initial question: which hash > should we be passing in the first place? As it turns out, we should be > passing the superproject's null OID indeed. The object ID we pass to > `repo_submodule_init()` does not describe any object in the submodule > itself, but rather indicates which tree-ish the submodule information > should be parsed from in the superproject. As such, it refers to an > object in the superproject itself and should thus use its object hash. Good reasoning. So the null-object suitable for the superproject is what we want there after all. We've been using the_hash_algo, which is the algorithm used in the_repository, which in turn *IS* the superproject in this code path, so we have been correct all the time ;-)
