From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-il1-f182.google.com (mail-il1-f182.google.com [209.85.166.182]) (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 A73FB20296E for ; Wed, 8 Oct 2025 21:59:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.166.182 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759960747; cv=none; b=XUUkKGRaaPVAOu5iD5u8sPvffCw5216NaMalX6FPPxqmKSUKpQR8CxWwcgiPHRqP3lmqKd1/53Qt9idIzVYh7f/9URzsDFqYqzaQjH2KHFw0Lf67sHui7cE+8X1l73eTyempVcT3uRJWzAH1iCWtOnqhKUdaaQBVU1hlmt1+TP0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759960747; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tKL/MBbTB/LDybjMCQzsYC83y6MEHLXDhUK1ttY6JrI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Lz2IADEFmtJYKfAqrFWTKKTbqSuwqTeySp9jjimLZ6wXsOcMOtJ2vRSB/5Yh25EBkP1MllxlvC+H+J+6W54HXU5OR7T3dfB3po3XIPtFjsWr4vlpDeAHDriUs+DcbriP93Y6s/UZ9Oo5SxnX6QLpO0/2ycqnUgSqTrF/z3KQ6O4= 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=N054cp+M; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.166.182 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="N054cp+M" Received: by mail-il1-f182.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-42d8bf52325so1561145ab.3 for ; Wed, 08 Oct 2025 14:59:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr.com; s=google; t=1759960744; x=1760565544; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uOolZRnb7/s2S0b0XOYrgRXsCwIKQsZrHWqzxKSdxLA=; b=N054cp+MuBv9AfPp0tUGrzqMgHB8A3UdwCqaEJwKRniDG//TcrSc2aullFJ/SzHma3 H5b92VxJed+W7g6MkYgH6GKoXI52Zj3xTpXS53B0/o/B7FuAwwDWRCaZ1W/e63CT/ww6 /8xHQStJ+KdcZWaBCTDxHnDZp5swQhHw59S6wMyMXrgxazID8rY4A4Cm/P1y8rkhCK4O oa3Y59KfbHpitvQXy8Qlqayftl5NZSFbFY4gPUVz3rd9eZRm5HoLkKTVsUKzc1p/abMc u4Zh9VsbQoN6DkAedE//SgbrC2svDh27JsrF/cv6zM/41wriQt+zvxIIlasGqhKWyhWA zhCQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1759960744; x=1760565544; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uOolZRnb7/s2S0b0XOYrgRXsCwIKQsZrHWqzxKSdxLA=; b=ZdHftHtt/lnqpVfT6vk4E0yFCo7xUFuATei4qBuThmFo1zXNelCVYO9QOsuTCgJrfh E1OWd6/yZqnMZ9fZvWNLEWMqzMyLUGGxwOR5t9m7E2seU4fZ0smzj8pIJGVmTAk/65dg MD1pz4Fyp4YaWreGtE/tX34jn3LZNjlJ3VJkJwjqjPZAmdsuWCvIanaeidpyKxZ+ffOG hfB+h7bFcob43HdHHyL42x08DihMvIcTc0BKJMW+uRpYXy32ZOcHgmCUPv5RqgUgo/Tv w5Bqa5hbeN1Wto4MidztjDExR/GXHKtt95tmDKNiY53ggzSiLitHimveo3xUx2zK/fky U/lg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCV05Zowx7Qh9lmy1M79APZZBXrgOgL6VBIQYXkXYBTid77Ei7cANU5WXg5dOKb7NOADz5M=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxNFEPqJC1d9VCo+NXeyEAUqJ9NIYZfx/hAiv8HpfC/mLsUk0PA kuIqxD+y2+wvbdNqqitDgTkhwMRwFXw0fjYy0aGFrt+G9kb+k65ayDA+WducGiD5vX0= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctX3EoeAGH/G/0RSdOW2Eqxh1Kx9Bvn5I6LwZqfETOlFVuZr0ohrFa8DraJYGV BYhJeKDYbY9Xpt5i5KbVx5apaOnX147ATo7BFdIhb6GOFwEYIb5/DcygUzfJgRlNeikdbkPI2jT +d3/lNOVFd9ZtncVtgP48xj/LOoONSztYxwsl2H69EMtv5BXWNRNQroK6FZJYbBe7IZCq2g4sTC Y64DLWv1P7Oi4d//qgqMCqqOWg+Y6O74gBF8PtE4+sOZz1eKvdF3wnrgq8vsSnDFISmwUhet5ZA vgGql++Ca5ArO/e74vwE/nOpEl40OtSdnYNCiK7mjc6/BMoWzaeuEeyQkNX46QoNpKy/di4xJmw kTC4I0I1uzEyE4z97DdaCYVrcBwxcVs0yoOe5rdK2FwOX05T3Mxheb5Br1wQQA43UdqCgMWGsSr D78EVgp1l3eIY4TBKB4IOrYoM+smXmgPpOcTWo3IJX2YHESgUvCQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGmNG0QORIVMZZwCyXlvLv1OEbopqlBi2vfvnC7XF9+60W27KK2bGuEgGU3CvOiS1ZeJHZ7QA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:2186:b0:42e:7273:a370 with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-42f87354820mr41303595ab.5.1759960744446; Wed, 08 Oct 2025 14:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with UTF8SMTPSA id 8926c6da1cb9f-57b5e9eba46sm7455008173.15.2025.10.08.14.59.04 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 08 Oct 2025 14:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2025 17:59:03 -0400 From: Taylor Blau To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Luca Milanesio , 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 Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 03:31:11PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 12:04:38PM -0400, 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 “forges” (e.g. JGit) incompatible, we would be in a > > > difficult situation with the other Git ecosystem that isn’t 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. > > > > 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. > > We definitely should take into account the readiness. But what I think > we'll need is a roadmap from impacted Git implementations and hosting > providers so that we can answer the question when they plan to have > SHA256 support ready. > > Without such a roadmap it's basically impossible for us to set up any > realistic date. In that case, we only have one of two options: > > - We just wait until eventually everyone has SHA256 support. This has > the effect that there is no pressure on anybody, and thus it is more > likely than not that it'll just never happen. > > - We set a strict, "uninformed" deadline that may be too ambitious and > unrealistic. > > Once we have roadmaps, we should set a strict deadline that takes them > into account. Any hosting provider or implementation of Git that doesn't > provide a roadmap will not be taken into account in our planning. I would imagine that the definition of "roadmap" here is fairly lightweight, since I imagine that some organizations may not want to share details beyond "we will have it done by X date". I think I generally agree with you, but I would say that while I think the project should take a firm stance on when it will release Git 3.0, I do not think that we should entirely disregard the readiness of forges/implementations by making the deadline so strict. Thanks, Taylor