Re: When should we release Git 3.0?
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Oct 2, 2025, 15:32 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqfrc1xqsp.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <aN5-n_ArhQqaQZgt@pks.im>
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 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.
Works fine as long as we assume everybody that matters will eventually want to move away from SHA-1.
- If a stakeholder gives a roadmap that has no SHA-256 in their future, in other words, if they are content to serve only the SHA-1 projects, what's the impact to them? We are not dropping the support for SHA-1 in the sense that if you clone from an existing SHA-1 repository you'll get an SHA-1 repository and you can push and fetch between them just fine, so presumably that is fine as well.
- If a stakeholder gives a roadmap with SHA-256 so far into the future that we cannot wait, what's the impact to them? Their customers that want SHA-256 earlier than they can supply could move to other hosting or implementation, but not really. Both hosting providers and Git implementations have components that are move than Git that are hard to migrate, like issue trackers, CI services, workflow tools, etc., that make their customers captive audience [*].
- If a stakeholder has a roadmap with SHA-256 in line with our timeframe, do we still need to assess the impact to them, or as long as we and they work hard to stick to the plan, we all will be happy?
> We should of course actively reach out to the projects that we're aware > of so that they have a chance to provide such a roadmap in the first > place.
[Footnote]
* Issue trackers and review logs that are federated, possibly using Git database for storage and transfer, may allow projects and users to freely roam across hosting sites, but there is no strong incentive for the hosting sites to fund such an effort X-<.