Re: SHA256 support not experimental, or?

> Adam Majer <adamm@zombino.com> writes:
>
>> I'll try again with inline patch.
>>
>> From 90be51143e741053390810720ba4a639c3b0b74c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>
> Remove all the above lines (including the "From <commit object
> ...
>> Signed-off-by: Adam Majer <adamm@zombino.com>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/git.txt                      | 4 ++--
>>  Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt | 8 ++------
>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>> ...
> This side looks OK (just removing the single sentence).
>
>>  Git Commits
>>  ~~~~~~~~~~~
>> diff --git a/Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt b/Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt
>> index 4cb106f0d1..1e976688be 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt
>> @@ -1,6 +1,2 @@
>> ...
>
> The original did not have this problem because it had enough
> surrounding context, but the updated text now risks getting misread
> as if there are "regular" and "special" SHA-1 repositories, the
> latter of which might work better with SHA-256.
>
> And the message about SHA-256's non-experimental status can probably
> be a lot stronger, after the discussion we had recently.  How about
> saying something like:
>
>     Note: there is no interoperability between SHA-256 repositories
>     and SHA-1 repositories right now.  We historically warned that
>     SHA-256 repositories may need backward incompatible changes
>     later when we introduce such interoperability features, but at
>     this point we do not expect that we need to make such a change
>     when we do so, and the users can expect that their SHA-256
>     repositories they create with today's Git will be usable by
>     future versions of Git without losing information.
>
> which would probably be much closer to what you wanted to hear?