From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fout-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout-b2-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.145]) (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 69F82238D52 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 06:00:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.145 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759989609; cv=none; b=GXQnT6qdfRVmDF25zeucPXoARF5998J9ZR7BODzEsoWf4evAZjn+xTOTDNQL94QCh+XQQeYj2MSYFgntdQIstyUknZo4YTY3ov1QvtUi1QUPyp0UZ9xBfqcFsHwBr6MlDIQATN0IeUfweYsCzySVNGqK7g6N4aqMUMePM3ZtBfY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759989609; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2wnU+YOAH6ZP+TY1mH1xJG/ETRedHZSUuCQwlp/LT0o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=DN5BdlbsSiNLH1o31xMWrQG9zt2yL9V+BY1sv77/iNUZ7FutG0iIuCK3yDFSc4uonaeBee/sTdV5BBbYYSHuLsTo7xaHzPvmNw1MBV4PXb6iAKksYuftSYD31pGpVJ5MAXliuQe6lPWQXRMdkCvUGm7u/xJXxjCj5yvC7yXmFos= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=NhfO7wi/; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=YhYPGQHR; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.145 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="NhfO7wi/"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="YhYPGQHR" Received: from phl-compute-05.internal (phl-compute-05.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailfout.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89DA71D00109; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 02:00:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-mailfrontend-01 ([10.202.2.162]) by phl-compute-05.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 09 Oct 2025 02:00:05 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1759989605; x=1760076005; bh=fPZnEH37Gm PDPrvbhU8AD/0mOjdxsbA5EtByoCRiA2I=; b=NhfO7wi/O4mJvryPv8PpEUlI2k 6MxnGBVocSY2QlOMNaNrUPDy9mYcw3qPUH9ETSagElNbqJSGTVo5mxrx5U+ZN/Wu S5TSEQqXSoe9HgzOMlRIxJuTwCbSw7YUoWMi4wG90cUvRjGRFQ301ZCHmF8o5xQ0 pCjGpqHzvS7rx45N5Et5H8uGds2Ho+asg8Z4gHTSSUJfroWALSthKCZkr9k9OunL QmS9xIT2b03SGtRLSxjWKRbGp+CqspaBwGaaZHSorGDHdod1Zh51NlwNpCLzRFu6 o+Y6tsWD/jEQMXjGb0SNQgTaj9oHC6zwI83RGNbCzwiUnSjGnQlhPuSR7oLQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1759989605; x=1760076005; bh=fPZnEH37GmPDPrvbhU8AD/0mOjdxsbA5EtB yoCRiA2I=; b=YhYPGQHRzufl85ahZ/vg1qa5EGxhGT/ftLfAeWf3scn70Bh7A/9 xHylthpskaeC7WDUvJczGKTia5WFRXXDpl2gs3/ngJ1d0yOFwnhKl05Lkwq04EAh ZGz01yhkxXzkYqGYj1zVo8plTxpZi3eC+0en/iW7Ypb2EaFWZmy0Y5ujlHKa99rj StUp/FL2nR1N2kZBegvZt33s4fZQzZco8wghMeXrzv4wF4AeUBHuMAEkxdRpOPbu SVAHr5arF3bCY/WjDcCR9AL88k8wp2vbzqFFNeZRzOYzyK19EUFHDk58lWMtWdjk zYiIgrUQwBrNaASp5NgB8ebkbZUPSeo7ZNQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeffedrtdeggddutdehgedtucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceu rghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujf gurhepfffhvfevuffkfhggtggujgesthdtrodttddtvdenucfhrhhomheprfgrthhrihgt khcuufhtvghinhhhrghrughtuceophhssehpkhhsrdhimheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnh epjedttdegffekudejjeegudehgfehtdfgtdeiudelueelgfeuteehledugeeuueevnecu vehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepphhssehpkh hsrdhimhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepgedpmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhrtghpthht ohepsggvnhdrkhhnohgslhgvsehgmhgrihhlrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepmhgvsehtth grhihlohhrrhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehluhgtrgdrmhhilhgrnhgvshhiohesghhm rghilhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehgihhtsehvghgvrhdrkhgvrhhnvghlrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 02:00:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id c88cb77b (TLSv1.3:TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256:256:NO); Thu, 9 Oct 2025 06:00:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 07:59:58 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Taylor Blau Cc: Ben Knoble , 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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 06:05:04PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 12:27:16PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > Yeah, it's definitely my goal here to do exactly that: reach out to > > folks and take everyone's input into account. Once we've got it, propose > > a timeline. > > > > I guess as part of that initial communication with the stakeholders we > > can also mention that the current plan is to release roughly towards the > > end of next year, which may help to put things into perspective. > > I am not sure what our proposal would be other than max(proposed_dates), > clamped to some reasonable range that we are comfortable with so as not > to delay the transition to use SHA-256 by default too far into the > future. > > I think a more interesting question is: > > - What do we do for implementations that do not have a roadmap, or > whose roadmap is too far into the future? > > - What do we do for implementations that have a roadmap, have a date > that is palatable to the project, but end up slipping and are unable > to meet that date? > > I generally agree that we have to draw a line in the sand *somewhere*, > but I don't think we should be so inflexible as to say "if you don't > have SHA-256 done by X date, you are out of luck". Of course, if the > amended timeline is too far beyond the initial deadline that's one case. > But if someone is a release cycle or so behind, I think it's reasonable > that the project should be flexible enough to accommodate that. Yeah, if it's about a small number of releases I definitely think we should accommodate for that. But if it's "We'll never have it" or "We'll have it in five years" it's probably a different story. In any case though, I'd propose to punt on those questions for now and wait for feedback from the impacted communities first. Once we have such feedback we can discuss in more detail. Patrick