From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2025 22:05:04 GMT
Subject: Re: When should we release Git 3.0?
Message-ID: <aObgEGjcou06nP68@nand.local>
In-Reply-To: <aOTrBAXhKF4iYzQB@pks.im>

On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 12:27:16PM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> Yeah, it's definitely my goal here to do exactly that: reach out to
> folks and take everyone's input into account. Once we've got it, propose
> a timeline.
>
> I guess as part of that initial communication with the stakeholders we
> can also mention that the current plan is to release roughly towards the
> end of next year, which may help to put things into perspective.

I am not sure what our proposal would be other than max(proposed_dates),
clamped to some reasonable range that we are comfortable with so as not
to delay the transition to use SHA-256 by default too far into the
future.

I think a more interesting question is:

 - What do we do for implementations that do not have a roadmap, or
   whose roadmap is too far into the future?

 - What do we do for implementations that have a roadmap, have a date
   that is palatable to the project, but end up slipping and are unable
   to meet that date?

I generally agree that we have to draw a line in the sand *somewhere*,
but I don't think we should be so inflexible as to say "if you don't
have SHA-256 done by X date, you are out of luck". Of course, if the
amended timeline is too far beyond the initial deadline that's one case.
But if someone is a release cycle or so behind, I think it's reasonable
that the project should be flexible enough to accommodate that.

Thanks,
Taylor