[darcs-users] Why Bitkeeper still wins

Daan Leijen daan at cs.uu.nl
Tue Mar 22 13:34:26 UTC 2005

Jamie Webb wrote:

>On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:20:48AM +0100, Peter Busser wrote:
>>And it uses 
>>SHA-1 hashes for everything. SHA-1 is starting to reach the end its useful 
>That depends on your definition of useful. The break in SHA1 is
>largely theoretical at this point. 
Well, Bruce Schneier seems to say that it is definitely broken (as of 
February 15, 2005):


-- Daan.

>No-one has successfully been able
>to manufacture a hash-preserving change to an existing file, and it's
>likely to be some time before they do. It's a vastly harder problem,
>and monotone will almost certainly have moved to a different hash
>function before it's an issue.
>Regardless, SHA1's cryptographic weaknesses are /completely/
>irrelevant to it's performance as a hash function for benign inputs,
>so Monotone is certainly no worse off than Darcs in this respect. It
>concerns me very very slightly that Monotone doesn't use any sort of
>global namespace to identify patches (as Darcs uses email addresses),
>but Monotone does allow one to make the collision probability
>arbitrarily small using some sort of grouping scheme, so again this is
>strictly a theoretical problem.
>I'd say the binary formats and relatively poor merging ability are
>by far the stronger arguments against monotone.
>-- Jamie Webb
>darcs-users mailing list
>darcs-users at darcs.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20050322/0dc940f5/attachment.htm 

More information about the darcs-users mailing list