From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-yw1-f177.google.com (mail-yw1-f177.google.com [209.85.128.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A8BB8C1F for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2025 16:01:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.177 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759334489; cv=none; b=gF/uKwnvcHA8Y5JY7XtX77T6unwfP5oEb2m4lQ4/QyTsRYhBeoiAJHuwaSAzyYvYQtdZWXvnjoxI7rSvX4hpOCDfiWe3yR7XLH1H1oKTL1bM9aofE4nTVYopPFfGU8lExPInQ43ThXjsDglaOT4LJX8I4ISwCpM/jQoxFV1eqf0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759334489; c=relaxed/simple; bh=MrptJzReRr+/7+ENpXdaw0pJhPMRVKuAX3VqRMF3SXM=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=PaVwdyFIJwmDrq2TDqLMJte6Rnyc3ETwdcvqMK/2hFrRSHWJk7iRglqA1xh4LXFKePThdf50EvvM2loM66OfhpVOm3Su0PO4dLz83I1Lv0NQ2J1IrK7T29t6LfQyx9NCWVHGsYTzlib5N+Xjq7lUR3owhbk2kvht8a/wefcpFgU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ttaylorr.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ttaylorr.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ttaylorr.com header.i=@ttaylorr.com header.b=cERs8oWn; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.177 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ttaylorr.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ttaylorr.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ttaylorr.com header.i=@ttaylorr.com header.b="cERs8oWn" Received: by mail-yw1-f177.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-71d60504bf8so348377b3.2 for ; Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:01:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr.com; s=google; t=1759334487; x=1759939287; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:to:from:date:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9TdmFgkj37vYiAF96pJlg96AWfBIfgW7Z+N6dJJydaQ=; b=cERs8oWnCJPXCi8D+QdD81rQ8b9MFbzyZk6uhBWTC4At80vxp9G4VVa2dxF07Ns7qB LQEarLcTWIFoGC3Tg63NhASsUTDCQPuw7cHF9haISWMhPmK7KZ7xIN2zuL4o8Fzuxids wsZE/c/9nysW9OvBywGDcuqHWP5vpIkDEuouGBSbZNi42Eu9SBESwndU1M52KgKZ55PK /1N0Un4TS9J+Ht4RoFl4MeohJoSM+NKBBYbb0fojxTNjloJaefsUMlZkGaYQLNMVCHxP IEBimNyv9uApsLfpAWtPx0/S3sPuOho0dRlOAJGYlHFuswTiFDsYcYTdkC3HCvNWAqzv 2ARQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1759334487; x=1759939287; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=9TdmFgkj37vYiAF96pJlg96AWfBIfgW7Z+N6dJJydaQ=; b=iO5ZP85rSDGtChFj/rzc9f6Rh5sclIcAmXc4bTXxut+0SrQjEekCF601m/d4ZN5qmu XFb5nHm4kSl/iPfLYDs2CYrdNy/kGJPJSRD1W7yg0CZzm0UeZD7DFiFXadeVcn+fGZkw Ocop3MaDBK3iI4gnKbfGdxA87022+X59HRNY0euS5LLVIIWrRLnXi8/EhL/MLQ1ckZ3R QycjwrzhunmmVknOq84Zmr7QgVKJd9p7Gj0ETao/PYyRvE86aJscVWO3PQszKQJiU+4R IgVlWTNG7np/LmBRVV7GwVglLC/YHyw4QrKRkXnn13El2BJyanLQlwkT1/IMG63q6Ylz aaug== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVTMQ9FGspnEhP4qAZJv8p0/3cLvtW/4yiW3bWBnUhFSnSo3SJ+XTmIr9F+jqYzOxWJeH8=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YziXRsU+plTmB+oXGbvbrpJRQj80NRFgorS/jaUvqdXvmtChU3j aC3hYL6y8mAuQtZYQc8RqCiMw9vKKmBen/aPK6YjD6uupd+O4UvUVqyHXTK13/HEp+wAdvxPCg3 WVzuyntuwcw== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncskrNH7uP+7c6DOFQ7C5Da3axpxUyIPwVYdB6CUIEpxt7p0YdaVk51shAL6DpQ oImYFemXQmlFd1b/GIu3jK0CXkORNPuDmwG5tbLE/bqmJ53jIQWpkLEXALD2AC4zplyg+jjAXHJ p4R6URphKHlgzFLeaFoyQ917JW8yDoyUGRIxT0EgeL7rfNJeOftnh/w1QKI4M9jsLlxTZu2fEhX J3Syncu8rYVJOxozAgwXgqJWu/IrD17J4z0KLJN9H19x1WMj/SeYQ9CUXPSCSgUQSphp8ODAluz ztB39ObSD8txyYKt/syjK/6rKkSveZPkXkxE2CLafLlosL2bQ3So67g2JuEjLcireicKBlzo2lH rznZt8AThij55Pb8XWwSWiEKmjkLJ55Qs9SZV3xgJjY/wzS9Z5iTed5moapHsPY5X8Odd8GiJXK ThiGgHf8j7QEKJYdHCjL+6MPmwy+nAk/BrxKTreFsfqStRsPEl5w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG1XQRBBnwt0B5FuaQMYFnU4xkUuu5Vp1WcNpONMuUhCFEyMu17phoO6Tiwebl5v3iqjpJF2Q== X-Received: by 2002:a53:be02:0:b0:633:4a1d:f9d6 with SMTP id 956f58d0204a3-63b6ff22237mr4123533d50.25.1759334486502; Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with UTF8SMTPSA id 956f58d0204a3-63b7c1577f0sm415650d50.9.2025.10.01.09.01.26 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 01 Oct 2025 09:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 12:01:20 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: "brian m. carlson" , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: When should we release Git 3.0? Message-ID: References: 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-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 11:07:42PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote: > Almost all of the functionality that we had wanted in Git 3.0 has been > implemented. The two major things we may want to consider as blockers > for Git 3.0 are the following: > > * The SHA-256 interoperability work is not done yet. My estimate of > this work is 200–400 patches, of which about 100 are done. If the > original schedule is maintained, this would require writing up to 75 > patches and sending in 100 patches per cycle, which is unrealistic > without additional contributors. I need to polish up the notes from the Contributor's Summit and share them with the list, but my general feeling at the end of the discussion on the SHA-256 interoperability work was that it wasn't clear whether or not it should be a blocker for Git 3.0. If post-3.0 repositories are using SHA-256, then either their post-Git 3.0 clients will also use SHA-256, or the pre-3.0 clients (without interop support) will be unable to interact with them. I don't think there would be any reason to have a interop-capable client use a SHA-256 repository in SHA-1 mode. On the other side of the coin, if a repository is still using SHA-1, then both pre-3.0 and post-3.0 clients will be able to interact with it without interop support. But you have thought about the interop work far more than I (or anybody else) has, so I am very likely missing some obvious use-case here. > * Some forges and other projects do not yet have full SHA-256 support. > It's my understanding that all of the major forges are undertaking or > have undertaken this work and are at various levels of completion, but > it's not clear that other projects have appropriate support. > > We may also wish to stick to a stricter timeframe for this release > regardless and make four releases from now or the next release a year > away Git 3.0 regardless of whether those items above are completed. > > Discussions at the Contributor Summit did mention the advantage of > having a hard deadline would be that it would make projects and forges > spend the time to implement SHA-256 support if they're lacking it. My feeling on this portion of the discussion was that we should take into account the readiness of the ecosystem as a whole in deciding when to release Git 3.0. I agree that not having a deadline can lead to forges delaying the work necessary to support SHA-256 repositories, so I agree that we shouldn't push it off into the future indefinitely. On the other side of the coin, I don't think we should rush Git 3.0 out the door before the ecosystem is broadly ready for it. If we do that, we're creating a worse experience for a significant portion of Git users that use popular forges who may not have complete SHA-256 support at the time of the release. Thanks, Taylor