From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from avasout-peh-001.plus.net (avasout-peh-001.plus.net [212.159.14.17]) (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 5F2B53F12E5 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 18:12:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=212.159.14.17 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790273529; cv=none; b=EDB9kHeYglcqEjwi9FTFgyxaPKsdmXtY9Uk0A6KZpc87eCNg4yFevthSAp4HEOTrMZZuBWmRTrn7q5ijeAWqXxMNXFt9bfjYvnH/Gd/hSyaf8/SQcqHNwreyZmYwgFJQzM/wSzcFIOmHEu7jE5NecAeVvsFCgNA8c4Ay4olzkwU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1790273529; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Um/ms6aKTsrbMI+qjrV9E93BejybecHc4FvQ6CQcypc=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=pm59bKIHYrjAUGOnWcin4KKbIJDqYyKGKt/auwjCPbbiuxPfRos8ATgq42R3l0SbfLHuZCyGxluCHe3cNvHO7pavXiFw0RBh31KGyo5K1j0Hf7GyNSIS0gRPWCi5zGEW8OoRP9gbSpxkHlJPMXOLYq0IOuzbUQDhkOmLdsXpy+M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ramsayjones.plus.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ramsayjones.plus.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=plus.com header.i=@plus.com header.b=nTq3WNLv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=212.159.14.17 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ramsayjones.plus.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ramsayjones.plus.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=plus.com header.i=@plus.com header.b="nTq3WNLv" Received: from [10.0.2.15] ([195.99.11.174]) by smtp with ESMTPA id 9nsLxw7CK5WHg9nsMxAD1f; Thu, 24 Sep 2026 19:08:55 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=plus.com; s=042019; t=1790273335; bh=6WEz62JjHDVPARtu/mY48qiXR7cQNseAv7NeuRKfMVE=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=nTq3WNLvythq5dhBlky4CIeeIvyN3DMx4ApVThzoHXbYfdTZFtXA0mSg/F6netQqw /Z8Te+K/gzz0I8qYx7aensUgeeZ9apSHhZiw1rEMLD6nZbi2qGCn1tCsosrIq/CU6c dqxzBDw8+NaWp75Cqm5Qz6ZmpTH6K7N2VYEuT5P858hrzQboRnly7pxDhjoqVCIPUh qllOw9VfA2RotyVncKloOpoACc5PSiXsWN219bni2kVJHiFPMLuxK+4QtkTe1gmzM2 pgvWhhZKWSxUAkRp8Rj7ziiZ/5d9XWnhPWLRkxU4nUb5oU5OHbNcTdPM1E1H3Beqd4 7W4uaBS84QIFg== X-Clacks-Overhead: "GNU Terry Pratchett" X-CM-Score: 0.00 X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=dpt4CEg4 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=6ab56737 a=rWEfxJwGD0TuYe46u5FB7A==:117 a=rWEfxJwGD0TuYe46u5FB7A==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=CCpqsmhAAAAA:8 a=ybZZDoGAAAAA:8 a=YJ8ixoa4bHfJ0UeAcskA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=h2X0mqEp8x8A:10 a=ul9cdbp4aOFLsgKbc677:22 a=0RhZnL1DYvcuLYC8JZ5M:22 X-AUTH: ramsayjones@:2500 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2026 19:08:53 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Git v3.0 timeline, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2026, #08) To: Junio C Hamano , Johannes Schindelin Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Adam Dinwoodie References: <76ac51df-cef8-c6a9-2610-8c21f03c6999@gmx.de> <5f34a5a9-9f72-b725-666a-94798895d122@gmx.de> Content-Language: en-US From: Ramsay Jones In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfBOESRBfjw/gk6ViArLnJ3Z59EVgKGwrpoP4liNuT9dwIWrrKKNm/Uz7mGiL0ei+GCAQcjrqOk6gEP0/eLrsnUU/MFlR72benzaAn3oJPKe2KM1VZ1MY qbm+o/0ZHsHsYvYIkZCX0KItG3jA9JSWLjlrSOfPbiEt/C4KnC4AxLu+JpqWK0JXBQjsMSlxZMzUBoL7PW53Y1CaurYSmYUfkaU= On 24/09/2026 5:30 am, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > [snip] > As I wrote, after the current cycle ends at the end of this month, a > 10-to-12-week cycle including the end-of-year slowness would mean the > next cycle, 2.98, will end at the end of this year. Extrapolating > from there, 2.99 will be March 2027. > > The consensus in the room was that we want to use 2.99 as a signal > that something big is coming, so there needs to be some lead time > between 2.99 and 3.0 for "advertisement". This lead time between > 2.99 and 3.0 does not have to be the usual 8-to-12-week full release > cycle. > > I do not think there was a firm agreement on the date for 2.99.1 and > 3.0. Potential factors mentioned in the room included that we may > want to match the LTS release schedule of major distributions. My > preference would be to give a month after 2.99 to apply only > accumulated bugfixes and nothing else, and tag it as 2.99.1, which > means 2.99.1 would be April 2027. > > The contents of 3.0 should be identical to 2.99.1 except that > breaking changes are enabled in 3.0 while they are disabled in > 2.99.1. Volunteers can run the 2.99.x series indefinitely to help > LTS distributions. > > At the release engineering level, I am very tempted to keep the > WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES Makefile knob in the 3.0 release in order to > keep the differences between 2.99.1 and 3.0 to an absolute minimum, > and then remove the "dead code" that is used when > WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES is not enabled from the 3.x series at our > leisure. > > So the above is what I have in mind, shaped mostly around the > consensus at the Contributors' Summit (or at least how I understand > what the consensus was), with my preference filling in what was not > firmly decided in the room. Back in January, on the cygwin-announce list[1], an experimental rust package was announced. This package was marked experimental and unmaintained in the cygwin setup program. I was hoping for a more 'official' package to emerge before trying it out on git. (the package was version 1.91.0 of rust built from a source tarball). However, there has been no sign of a formal supported (test or production) package since then (there is still time, of course). ;) Anyway, this thread prompted me to try the experimental package: $ vim config.mak # comment out NO_RUST $ cat config.mak DEFAULT_TEST_TARGET=prove GIT_PROVE_OPTS=--timer -j8 #NO_RUST=1 NO_DC_SHA1_SUBMODULE=NoThanks DEVELOPER=1 $ Having fetched today, the 'master' branch @0f8e75abeb is v2.56.0-rc2 with the branch 'en/no-amend-during-conflicts' reverted. $ make >out1 2>&1 $ ./git version git version 2.56.0.rc2.1.g0f8e75abeb $ git describe v2.56.0-rc2-1-g0f8e75abeb $ diff out out1 1c1 < GIT_VERSION=2.56.0.rc2 --- > GIT_VERSION=2.56.0.rc2.1.g0f8e75abeb 277d276 < CC varint.o 308a308 > CARGO target/release/libgitcore.a $ The 'out' file is yesterdays build of v2.56.0-rc2. (Similarly, the 'sp-out', 'sc' and 'hcout' files record output for v2.56.0-rc2). $ make sparse >sp-out1 2>&1 $ diff sp-out sp-out1 268d267 < SP varint.c $ $ ./static-check.pl >sc1 $ diff sc sc1 $ $ make -k hdr-check >hcout1 2>&1 $ diff hcout hcout1 $ $ . ../git-test-setup $ env | grep TEST TEST_NO_MALLOC_CHECK=yes GIT_TEST_CHAIN_LINT=0 $ make test >test-out-2-56-rc2-1 2>&1 $ tail -n 13 test-out-2-56-rc2-1 Test Summary Report ------------------- unit-tests/bin/unit-tests.exe (Wstat: 256 (exited 1) Tests: 261 Failed: 1) Failed test: 254 Non-zero exit status: 1 t9904-url-parse.sh (Wstat: 256 (exited 1) Tests: 53 Failed: 4) Failed tests: 39, 42-43, 47 Non-zero exit status: 1 Files=1060, Tests=33592, 3519 wallclock secs (42.61 usr 141.30 sys + 9056.74 cusr 12680.95 csys = 21921.60 CPU) Result: FAIL make[1]: *** [Makefile:82: prove] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/ramsay/git/t' make: *** [Makefile:3424: test] Error 2 $ Despite the failure, this shows exactly the same failures as v2.56.0-rc2. So, this doesn't stress the rust compiler very much, but I guess it is slightly encouraging! I suppose Brian has plenty of rust code in a branch somewhere that could be tested ... Unfortunately, I am just about (in a few hours) to go into hospital for a surgical procedure, so I will be AWOL for some time yet, ... ATB, Ramsay Jones [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/cygwin-announce/2026-January/012823.html