Re: When should we release Git 3.0?

> 
> > Le 2 oct. 2025 à 09:33, Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> a écrit :
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 12:04:38PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> So my feeling here is that we should take into account not just the
> >> readiness of the underlying Git implementation used by hosting providers
> >> in the Git ecosystem, but also the readiness of the hosting providers
> >> themselves to do the work necessary to facilitate that transition
> >> outside of their Git implementation.
> > 
> > We definitely should take into account the readiness. But what I think
> > we'll need is a roadmap from impacted Git implementations and hosting
> > providers so that we can answer the question when they plan to have
> > SHA256 support ready.
> > 
> > Without such a roadmap it's basically impossible for us to set up any
> > realistic date. In that case, we only have one of two options:
> > 
> >  - We just wait until eventually everyone has SHA256 support. This has
> >    the effect that there is no pressure on anybody, and thus it is more
> >    likely than not that it'll just never happen.
> > 
> >  - We set a strict, "uninformed" deadline that may be too ambitious and
> >    unrealistic.
> 
> This seems like a false dichotomy to me. Of course we can forever
> debate options to go forward, too, so at some point we must have a
> decision :)
> 
> Anyway, what about establishing a strong but adjustable (“proposed”)
> timeline now, based on informed opinions from folks who have already
> provided estimates of what’s required? Then we can shop around for
> input on the proposed deadline while still taking into account new
> information. 
> 
> It also provides impetus: “sans input, we will go forward with the
> proposal, so let us know if you need more time” might motivate folks
> to firm up their own timelines and provide said input.

> > Once we have roadmaps, we should set a strict deadline that takes them
> > into account. Any hosting provider or implementation of Git that doesn't
> > provide a roadmap will not be taken into account in our planning.
> 
> Btw, I’ve often wondered since I see representatives from
> GitHub/GitLab (and JGit/Gerrit to a lesser extent) often prominently
> identified as such: do we have folks from GitTea/SourceHut/other
> smaller forges around on the mailing list to weigh in? I assume we’d
> also like to include their input.