From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from secure.elehost.com (secure.elehost.com [185.209.179.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9503B1553A3 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2025 19:32:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.209.179.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759347131; cv=none; b=PnCzLtRajAUyPg0Hm57v3luMjksggyRQJUtro6v318shrRvUiA8tlQgWWHbttXiRot0uh5oWKKxv++1IRC7Jski3ShPLeqfOfmSSWTofC+rBuTTQzaHf1mYfxCohf98RutVA7FHckUiPrcGf8xSJhoqvvm6dm9gKWx52oMR+QNo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759347131; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8BfDrgqXofHBrkKoTDO8G1VZ0chApNSnnbnZsQh/HwA=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=fqAC1jqcLfoIXkM+BkJaQZ02B0fJNqHI9B0wukMChCILz/CU+jiehAUmOpwrm98A7/3yz6OyZiC3rnBrZpUPzkFdRoY5mEn6WbaOdUQCOpFMCt1fig6bHyiMPjEwRrhwe0lwvib/pS/4P/nb76xTrPHMYJM9VpOmDSJmrKgEbec= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.209.179.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=nexbridge.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nexbridge.com X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at secure.elehost.com Received: from Mazikeen (pool-99-228-67-183.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [99.228.67.183]) (authenticated bits=0) by secure.elehost.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-22ubuntu3) with ESMTPSA id 591JW0Zb009659 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 1 Oct 2025 19:32:01 GMT Reply-To: From: To: "'Taylor Blau'" , "'Luca Milanesio'" Cc: References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: When should we release Git 3.0? Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 15:31:54 -0400 Organization: Nexbridge Inc. Message-ID: <04f501dc330a$0ecd3010$2c679030$@nexbridge.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQDc5ElCUINr1BANOCKnX9gjum1mMAHWZFQOAjM1ZSK2i/4v0A== Content-Language: en-ca X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 251001-10, 10/1/2025), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean On October 1, 2025 12:05 PM, Taylor Blau wrote: >On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 08:13:12AM +0100, Luca Milanesio wrote: >> I am worried that if we rush into Git 3.0 with breaking changes that >> would make other =E2=80=9Cforges=E2=80=9D (e.g. JGit) incompatible, = we would be in a >> difficult situation with the other Git ecosystem that isn=E2=80=99t = based on >> the C-Git implementation. > >That's a good point. I am not familiar enough with JGit (or really any = non-standard >Git implementations) to know where SHA-256 support is in those = respective >implementations. AFAIK, JGit still depends on some core git functions, including gc. It = also depends on LFS for those functions. Interop it fairly important in that space. >But regardless of whether we're talking about a forge that is based on = git.git or >some other implementation, there is very likely lots of other work to = be done to >support SHA-256 outside of flipping the hash function within Git. > >(I'm thinking here about database migrations for columns that may store = 40- >character SHA-1 hashes, for example, which can take a potentially = significant >amount of time to migrate depending on the size of the database, etc.) > >So my feeling here is that we should take into account not just the = readiness of the >underlying Git implementation used by hosting providers in the Git = ecosystem, but >also the readiness of the hosting providers themselves to do the work = necessary to >facilitate that transition outside of their Git implementation. Regards, Randall