Re: [TOPIC 05/11]: SHA 256 / Git 3.0

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 20, 2024, 19:22 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqzfo2f7vh.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <Zu2EdQs6xf2FRkpa@nand.local>

Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:

> * Peff: I have a proposal for Git 3.0, maybe this has been discussed?
>   Can we get rid of some of the older protocols (dumb HTTP)?

Please discuss these on list. Removal of http walker (both for fetching and pushing) you have my blessing ;-)

> * Patrick: Lots of esoteric things, like show-branch, which apparently
>   nobody uses.

You remove show-branch and you will stop seeing "What's cooking" ("git show-branch master $branch1 $branch2 ..." is used as a way to find the commits on each topic branch in flight, instead of running "git log master..$branch" N times).

> * Elijah: not just removals, but changing defaults, etc.

Yes.

Show 5 quoted lines

> * Emily: are we interested in non-backwards compatible changes, like
>   adding multi-Author fields to commits?
> * Peff: I think that's a bad example, it can be done without breaking
>   compatibility, but it was decided to not to do it. You're welcome to
>   resurrect the discussion.

Good.

>    * Taylor: the items on that document aren't a checkbox list of things
>      to do before Git 3.0, but isn't a "let's get all of these things
>      done and then we'll release Git 3.0".

Yes.

>       * More that we'll all wake up one day, realize that we've done all
>         or enough of what would go into Git 3.0, then remove a bunch of
>         code, and ship it.

Not exactly (see my recent comment on feature.git3 on the list---we need a good transition plan and early adopter opt-in mechanism).