|
|
|
|
|
by mathw
3122 days ago
|
|
It explains this further rather later in the document. There's a compatibility mode, where it understands a translation between SHA-1 named objects and NewHash named objects, and translates them at the boundary - i.e. during a pull or a push. Obviously you're at risk to some extent of flaws in SHA-1 being exploited in your remote, although presumably if the translation layer detects the SHA-1 of something didn't change but the NewHash did then it'll scream. It does seem this is a temporary situation though, as it mentions in one small sentence that for the final transition stage they envisage the protocol also supporting NewHash, so they can throw away all SHA-1 metadata everywhere. What they don't address in that plan is how the protocol gets extended, but they do clearly rely on that happening for the full transition to take place. |
|