Re: [PATCH v5 7/9] BreakingChanges: announce Rust becoming mandatory
- From
SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 22, 2025, 19:34 UTC
- Message-ID
- <aNGkt/DdnbjNu3s8@szeder.dev>
- In-Reply-To
- <aMteF4VTq2C5sAhK@fruit.crustytoothpaste.net>
On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 01:19:19AM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> On 2025-09-17 at 22:09:10, SZEDER Gábor wrote: > > Providing an LTS release for those platforms that can't jump on the > > Rust bandwagon is great, but... > > > > Git 3.0 will switch the default hash algorithm for newly initialized > > repositories to SHA-256, which, presumably, will also encourage SHA-1 > > -> SHA-256 migrations in existing repositories. Alas, it appears that > > the SHA-1/SHA-256 interop feature will only be available in Rust. > > > > How will this affect those platforms without Rust? What will and > > won't work on such platforms? > > On Git 3.0, nothing will work without Rust because it will be mandatory.
Well, "What will and won't work with respect to hash transition" was what I meant but, alas, didn't convey.
Show 14 quoted lines
> However, people who want to perform the conversion can do that by > booting a Linux VM[0] and converting the repository there, then pushing > it somewhere. The only inconvenience is that you'll have to have a flag > day for working with the repository on older Git: you won't be able to > dynamically pull from or push to a repository with a different main > algorithm than you. > > One of my first patches is that setting extensions.compatObjectFormat > without Rust will simply die and say that's not supported. If that > config value is unset, then Git up to 3.0 will simply function as > normal, so full single-hash compatibility is assured. We already have > that: SHA-256 repositories work just fine with SHA-256 remotes and SHA-1 > repositories work just fine with SHA-1 remotes, but they're currently > not interoperable.
Thanks for the explanation. I think this would indeed be a worthwhile addition to the commit message, or perhaps even to the BreakingChanges document.
Show 6 quoted lines
> > I think it should be called out explicitly in the justification that > > whatever limitations this imposes on those platforms with respect to > > hash function transition, the project has duly considered that and is > > OK with it. > > I am fine with this and I don't think this is a problem.
Not sure I can agree with that, though.
> I realize the decision to incorporate Rust was made recently,
Indeed it was.