From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from complex.crustytoothpaste.net (complex.crustytoothpaste.net [172.105.7.114]) (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 4F85CEEC0 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2025 22:16:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=172.105.7.114 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759357005; cv=none; b=G0w801eKkjA+/vWIMOv4eIx39plRk6VYSzz7RElgGiVX7v9Ix8wiDeEV27i/cC5av4thckR2SMiPOrIrnxuEV+2zqmDDv7SlhBKMe+eXFZhiOe76Wg4Qpcqs3Ff6Ih3b0smr9vl4l23FE1tkpjj+Qok853YYU4Z4VR10y+VJxCY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759357005; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yHCUcpuPc9VHhRQ4BOpcrkuKpDa7jnZcc9PQRHTKMsE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=b/zKaxSxqjqNYopvAl2a+jA7tSypHSFbScl1XA/tOf78AXG4gdcdWFAQhCf9x9cvE5ztvmQkzfzgbMOByGThwAry4pRs2QEjZk6T7wySsNKPJGnhizy4XXxonQ2riKgFnpRZTitsEH2CjkJS2y0/yF/1NjFuzFkm0I3FjMZ/z48= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=crustytoothpaste.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=crustytoothpaste.net; dkim=pass (3072-bit key) header.d=crustytoothpaste.net header.i=@crustytoothpaste.net header.b=fVMQj5cI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=172.105.7.114 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=crustytoothpaste.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=crustytoothpaste.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (3072-bit key) header.d=crustytoothpaste.net header.i=@crustytoothpaste.net header.b="fVMQj5cI" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crustytoothpaste.net; s=default; t=1759357001; bh=yHCUcpuPc9VHhRQ4BOpcrkuKpDa7jnZcc9PQRHTKMsE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Content-Type: Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:From:Reply-To:Subject:Date:To:CC: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:Content-Disposition; b=fVMQj5cI/ByrWmtuPSwzzWgDBD82uWj0bBkDwd4YID5+2tiqVCdlhBcDIkVO8vJwJ j0khzgLVFMrBR0gX1o8NIZW4G4ku4JP/uyf66Pjm1lZ2+tzxfMh9XM8gJnfJjM3AkJ c7ryaxNKKdReUU1NZVM5sJPTNvEDLfiHHM1Y+IPgU52EDFP4aJfssQWISgS0cUK/WO g5tCzEMqzJBK9ZdXQ131Kt/nfcWVc2qccTsFJqy6mHKBvjZ781aa1kMtb2lBgYuXWM UaygoiQPIrvZAarEtTD4EyGuLsSvNlglASb91a/Yw/8umcSu9gdk3lrItLVFzoTOjO Zq5RtN27hjIKaj6rwif7+8tRseUOmEsq4l9MzGWP+z3jVv8X85mB9el+95ZWn2pvNb cWwyxg78CkcQ7Ry+wOSv7MoprcHgVUm0uYY6nibm1/iCDLUns7TYUUAb25i/pugVa6 /kx6ShcYvLVHHIcWQNJxuUtFWersAhVQPWf9kiklLrq1uWqCvcW Received: from fruit.crustytoothpaste.net (unknown [IPv6:2607:f2c0:f00f:f901:eb6:3c64:95b3:ebcf]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by complex.crustytoothpaste.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ADCB120113; Wed, 1 Oct 2025 22:16:41 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2025 22:16:40 +0000 From: "brian m. carlson" To: Michal =?utf-8?B?U3VjaMOhbmVr?= Cc: Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: When should we release Git 3.0? Message-ID: Mail-Followup-To: "brian m. carlson" , Michal =?utf-8?B?U3VjaMOhbmVr?= , Taylor Blau , git@vger.kernel.org References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="T+K501xGQASZabOI" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.13 (2024-03-09) --T+K501xGQASZabOI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2025-10-01 at 16:20:05, Michal Such=C3=A1nek wrote: > From my very limited point of view as a user the interop is the major > planned feature currently missing in git, and I do not see much point > without it. Then again I do not know how useful it will be in practice. It is the major planned feature which was missing. The primary use cases are converting repositories and working with repositories using a different algorithm. The latter might be useful if you're using a SHA-256 repository that someone else has created but your tooling cannot handle longer object IDs or otherwise has some limitation of that sort. If you are happy working with SHA-1 repositories in SHA-1 and SHA-256 repositories in SHA-256, then you don't need the interoperability work. SHA-256 repositories have been supported in a compatible way since 2.29 or 2.30. > Then again cloning a repository uses the correct hash which means if I > create the repository on the forge and clone it there is no problem > whatsoever regardless of hash used. Whill that break as well? Cloning a repository always uses the existing algorithm. The default would change to create _new_ repositories created with `git init` with SHA-256 (although you could change the settings to use SHA-1 instead), but it wouldn't affect existing repositories. --=20 brian m. carlson (they/them) Toronto, Ontario, CA --T+K501xGQASZabOI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.4.8 (GNU/Linux) iHUEABYKAB0WIQQILOaKnbxl+4PRw5F8DEliiIeigQUCaN2oRwAKCRB8DEliiIei gVATAP0Yvb37Yrhl80AVmrRT8js3tWLkkYSIJrhk8C+pbSyTcQEAwR4oWuGVm/yP SDZwPLkkyClygzsX3QsW9f+dvQL57w8= =UIMW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --T+K501xGQASZabOI--