From: Taylor Blau Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2026 18:06:17 GMT Subject: [NOTES 02/07] Git 3.0 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Topic: Git 3.0 Leader: Patrick Steinhardt Notetaker: Justin * Patrick: The blocker was GitHub not having SHA-256 support. When will GitHub fully support it? * brian: GitHub has shipped it experimentally, with general availability probably in November. * Patrick: GitLab already has public, non-experimental support. We are looking at spring next year for Git 3.0. libgit2 has support; JGit does not. * Emily: Google will not fund SHA-256 support in JGit. * brian: It does not look like Bitbucket will support it. * Emily: Gitoxide may have funding for SHA-256 support. * brian: There will be a couple more releases: 2.56, then 2.9x, and so on. * Taylor: We could use 2.99 and then 2.999 if needed. * Patrick: 2.99 would be a stronger signal than 2.95. * Peff: Why might users not want to jump to 3.0? Rust support will be mandatory. * Patrick: A possible schedule is 2.56 in September 2026, 2.98 in December 2026, and 2.99 and 3.0 in March 2027. We need to find out whether anybody is interested in an LTS release. * brian: Gentoo would be interested in a 2.99 LTS release. * Patrick: We could potentially cut out one of the releases. * Peff: We could make one of the cycles shorter. * Taylor: The 3.0 release could be small, containing only the changes to the defaults. * Patrick: The counterargument is that we want to use 2.99 as a signal. * Peff: We should release 2.99.1 and 3.0 at the same time, with only the BREAKING_CHANGES defaults flipped in 3.0. * [Consensus among the attendees.] * brian: Are there any objections to Rust in 3.0? * [No objections recorded.] * Peff: Are there timing concerns around distribution release cycles? We might want to synchronize with them. * brian: If we do 2.99 and 3.0 back to back, that puts us in the April timeframe. * Patrick: Do we want to drop 2.57? * [The notes record dropping 2.57 in favor of an earlier 2.98.] * Peff: GitHub might encounter bugs once users start using SHA-256. Would we see similar bugs in Git? * brian: Codeberg exposes this in its UI, and has a decent number of users. * Patrick: GitLab has test suites covering this, and we have upstreamed a few fixes. I am confident there are very few bugs. * Patrick: Should we migrate? * Taylor: I may be a little behind on the interoperability work. Would it also handle historical tags? * brian: Yes. The work is done, but not on the list. You can clone a normal SHA-1 repository and get interoperability with SHA-256.