> Source control management systems such as Git and Mercurial use SHA-1 not for security but for ensuring that the data has not changed due to accidental corruption. Linus Torvalds has said about Git: "If you have disk corruption, if you have DRAM corruption, if you have any kind of problems at all, Git will notice them. It's not a question of if, it's a guarantee. You can have people who try to be malicious. They won't succeed. [...] Nobody has been able to break SHA-1, but the point is the SHA-1, as far as Git is concerned, isn't even a security feature. It's purely a consistency check. The security parts are elsewhere, so a lot of people assume that since Git uses SHA-1 and SHA-1 is used for cryptographically secure stuff, they think that, OK, it's a huge security feature. It has nothing at all to do with security, it's just the best hash you can get.
I don't think commit hash was ever intended to be cryptographically secure. It's just a unique identifier.
In hindsight, it's good that git didn't choose MD5, since collisions for MD5 can be generated almost trivially now. However, the decreasing security of SHA-1 could be a concern for the future.