Add generated archives for SHA-256 in gix-pack#2602
Merged
Sebastian Thiel (Byron) merged 2 commits intoMay 27, 2026
Merged
Conversation
Sebastian Thiel (Byron)
force-pushed
the
run-gix-pack-tests-with-sha-256
branch
from
36597c3 to
4f1bb83
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Copilot wasn't able to review any files in this pull request.
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
It's not useful either as there is no relationship between the Version of the index file and the hash to use.
Member
|
That's a great catch! I also don't know why this |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
While working on this PR, I noticed that there’s a method,
gix_pack::index::Version::hash(), that currently is only implemented forfeature = "sha1". This method does not appear to be called, though (at least, my LSP found no references to it), so I was wondering whether it was redundant. Or, if it was not redundant, how it would need to be changed in order to support SHA-256.This is part of #281.