From 13db029ac045c41ce1e7607dcac2365665a77271 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joey Hess Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 16:11:10 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] comment --- ...t_2_e6005a7563a65c0fd4615cc3f2c3034b._comment | 16 ++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/design/external_backend_protocol/comment_2_e6005a7563a65c0fd4615cc3f2c3034b._comment diff --git a/doc/design/external_backend_protocol/comment_2_e6005a7563a65c0fd4615cc3f2c3034b._comment b/doc/design/external_backend_protocol/comment_2_e6005a7563a65c0fd4615cc3f2c3034b._comment new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..5ff341183e --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/design/external_backend_protocol/comment_2_e6005a7563a65c0fd4615cc3f2c3034b._comment @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="joey" + subject="""comment 2""" + date="2020-07-31T20:05:42Z" + content=""" +SHA512 backend has 128 bytes key name, that's where I got that suggestion +from. Some filesystems have limits around 255 bytes for the name of a file, +so that leaves plenty for extension, and the rest of the parts of the key. +Realistically, the length of a SHA256 is a better goal. + +Of course, if you had a crazy 1025 byte hash and wanted to use it on IDK, +GNU Hurd or something, you could do it, but your repo +would not be portable to eg Linux with its 1024 byte filename limit. +git-annex itself does not care though, and I *think* git would also not +care. +"""]]