On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 02:14:05PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On 2025-06-20 at 14:26:37, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> If we call use a name with SHA-1 in it (e.g., GIT_HASH_MUST_BE_SHA1) > >> from the beginning, perhaps we do not have to rename _ORIGINAL later? > > > > We could call it GIT_HASH_LEGACY_SHA1 if you prefer that. I originally > > considered something like GIT_HASH_GOOD_OLD_REV (GOOD_OLD_REV comes from > > ext2's much more rigid and less extendable v0 rather than its newer v1 > > format), but I felt like that would be too esoteric and not document > > things well enough. > > > > I'm also open to other ideas for naming if someone has them. After all, > > naming things is one of the hard problems in computer science. > > Yup, legacy-sha1 is good enough. I just did not want a name that > does not have sha1 in it. Agreed. I almost started bikeshedding in the patch where you introduced the define, but refrained from doing so. I myself would have proposed GIT_HASH_SHA1_HISTORICAL, but calling it "legacy" is even better. Patrick
