undefined | Better HN

0 pointsloeg9y ago0 comments

The one typedef could have just been changed from char[20] to 'struct objectid' to support multiple hash types.

0 comments

It was, see comment from bk2204 above:

> Yes, this is correct. The struct object_id changes don't actually change the hash. What they do, however, is allow us to remove a lot of the hard-coded instances of 20 and 40 (SHA-1 length in bytes and hex, respectively) in the codebase.

loegOP9y ago

No. We're talking about zoren's hypothetical case where git used a typedef from the beginning, instead of littering char[20]s all over the tree.

My prior comment was explaining why jffry's complaint is nonsensical (a typedef does not prevent moving from a single hash model to a multiple simultaneous hash model).

hn_throwaway_999y ago

Hmm, not sure where there disagreement is, that's exactly what I'm saying. Obviously it wasn't done from the beginning, but the code is now changing from the char[20]s everywhere to the typedef precisely to be able support multiple hash functions.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

hn_throwaway_999y ago

It was, see comment from bk2204 above:

loegOP9y ago

No. We're talking about zoren's hypothetical case where git used a typedef from the beginning, instead of littering char[20]s all over the tree.

My prior comment was explaining why jffry's complaint is nonsensical (a typedef does not prevent moving from a single hash model to a multiple simultaneous hash model).

hn_throwaway_999y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse