Re: Git v3.0 timeline, was Re: What's cooking in git.git (Sep 2026, #08)

From: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@ramsayjones.plus.com>
Date: Sep 24, 2026, 18:08 UTC
Message-ID: <d1ad4da9-e5b6-41c8-8049-0d8ac012a1e2@ramsayjones.plus.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqpky346fr.fsf@gitster.g>

On 24/09/2026 5:30 am, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>

[snip]

Show 34 quoted lines

> 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