Re: My summary of the Git Contributors' Summit 2026, was Re: Git v3.0 timeline, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2026, #08)

>
> I originally wrote this summary of the Git Contributor Summit only for my
> own records, but since you hinted at wanting some meeting notes, figured
> it might be interesting to other people, too. So here goes my distillation
> of the breakout-sessions from this year's Contributors' Summit. Many of
> these ideas still need discussion on the list; proposals below are not
> project-wide decisions.

> Git v3.0
>
> The proposed target is spring 2027: v2.56 in September 2026, v2.98 in
> December, then v2.99 and v3.0 next spring. The jump in version numbers is
> intended to signal the approaching breaking changes. March and April were
> both mentioned; the precise timing is not settled.
>
> There was agreement on releasing v2.99.1 and v3.0 together, differing only
> in the BREAKING_CHANGES (v3.0 switches them on). That keeps the transition
> separate from another round of feature development. Nobody in the room
> objected to Rust becoming mandatory in v3.0. (Personal note: probably
> because Randall wasn't there, to say that NonStop support would be a
> blocker and that Git please wait.) A v2.x LTS remains an open question,
> with Gentoo mentioned as an interested party. (Personal note: I am still
> advocating for an in-tree Long Term Support branch, and since Junio
> indicated that he's less than eager to take care of that, I would love for
> Patrick Steinhardt to be the "LTS lieutenant", I vaguely remember that he
> said he'd do it if asked, and I trust his judgement, so I'd ask.)

> Documentation
>
> Julia's work highlights the gap between documentation written by people
> who know Git inside out and users who do not yet know what objects, the
> index, or upstream mean. We need approachable learning material as well as
> reference documentation. Both need work; keeping manpages concise does not
> mean they cannot have better explanations and examples. (Personal note: I
> am beyond excited that Julia, whose work I have always admired, got
> interested in improving Git's documentation, which is in dear need of
> being improved, mainly because it does not cater to the majority of Git
> users out there who are unlikely to wander onto the Git mailing list,
> ever. I just hope that old-timers who really do not need the documentation
> nor understand the need of those who do need it show enough appreciation
> for the fresh views and for Julia's understanding of the target audience.)