-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 368
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
git, hg: Use full revision #5342
Conversation
I completely agree with this PR. I do not understand the reason for using only the first 8 characters. For reference, the code was introduced nearly 10 years ago and never changed fb8fece For reference, I understand the desire to have a stable output (i.e. a fixed length), but then I also don't quite understand why the conditional may ever hit the case |
Please let me note that git increased at some point from using 6 characters to 7 (in git describe), and with more sophisticated attacks on SHA1, I don't see any value in truncating the output. |
Before, the revision was at most the first 8 bytes in the revision. This can be problematic for reproducibility since the revision may then be ambiguous.
bf6b2ad
to
0d94c43
Compare
Agree on the idea, it needs some testing for mercurial part |
I agree, too - it obviously makes sense to display the shortest unique prefix for a clearer display to a user, but certainly not to be using that internally. |
I'm wondering what the status of this PR is and what can be done to get it merged? Since three opam developers are supporting this PR, I propose to merge it rather sooner than being delayed for unclear reasons ("it needs some testing for mercurial part" -- so who's using mercurial and opam these days? If this is a showstopper, maybe revert the changes to opamHg.ml?) |
I've just tested locally using mercurial and it works fine (the default hash size for mercurial is 12) Thanks a lot! |
git, hg: Use full revision
git, hg: Use full revision
Before, the revision was at most the first 8 bytes in the revision. This can be problematic for reproducibility since the revision may then be ambiguous. I don't know much about mercurial and how their revisions look like.
CC @hannesm