Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] sign a SHA-256 digest of the tree in commits and tags

["brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2328 bytes --]

On 2026-10-06 at 22:38:37, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> If your time were corporate-funded, and if I declared that we would
> accept no changes other than the SHA-256 interoperability work and
> perhaps other low-impact changes, and that we would give anyone
> helping with the SHA-256 interoperability work the power to veto any
> topics that may interfere with quick integration of their work for N
> months, would it have worked better, I wonder?

It might have.  I don't want to say that the ODB work and other
in-flight topics aren't valuable because I feel the opposite, in fact,
but they just make things a moving target and if I'm doing less things
in my personal time, it makes it hard to keep up.

As I mentioned, one of the main impediments to my time being
corporate-funded at the moment is that I can't send out patches from
$DAYJOB because we're forced to use Outlook, which will corrupt patches,
and I don't want to send out work patches from my personal address.  I
don't mind if other people wanted to send out those patches, though, so
that kind of collaboration could work if I could get my employer to
agree (which is likely, given the fact that I previously spent time
working on it, but not guaranteed).

I think if we could get someone to polish and upstream patches while I
work on the next steps at work, that might work well, but of course I
don't want to be very prescriptive about how others contribute.  As I
said, there's plenty of things that need to be done such that we can
have several people working on things and I'm grateful for any
assistance I can get.  Even someone rebasing things, resolving
conflicts, and fixing tests would be super helpful.

One thing is that we would need reviews if we want to get patches merged
in a timely manner and that's kind of difficult at the moment.  That was
an issue for the original SHA-256 work, in fact, as well.

> Such an arrangement certainly requires buy-in from other
> stakeholders.  Employers who fund scalability work would not only
> have to wait their turn, but might also need to be convinced to
> divert their resources to help this effort, so that the magic
> number N becomes smaller and they get their turn sooner, for
> example.

Of course.
-- 
brian m. carlson (they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 325 bytes --]