Hello,

On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 12:01:20PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:

On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 11:07:42PM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:

quoted

Almost all of the functionality that we had wanted in Git 3.0 has been
implemented.  The two major things we may want to consider as blockers
for Git 3.0 are the following:

* The SHA-256 interoperability work is not done yet.  My estimate of
  this work is 200–400 patches, of which about 100 are done.  If the
  original schedule is maintained, this would require writing up to 75
  patches and sending in 100 patches per cycle, which is unrealistic
  without additional contributors.

From my very limited point of view as a user the interop is the major
planned feature currently missing in git, and I do not see much point
without it. Then again I do not know how useful it will be in practice.

I need to polish up the notes from the Contributor's Summit and share
them with the list, but my general feeling at the end of the discussion
on the SHA-256 interoperability work was that it wasn't clear whether or
not it should be a blocker for Git 3.0.

If post-3.0 repositories are using SHA-256, then either their post-Git
3.0 clients will also use SHA-256, or the pre-3.0 clients (without
interop support) will be unable to interact with them. I don't think
there would be any reason to have a interop-capable client use a SHA-256
repository in SHA-1 mode.

Flipping the default to sha256 would clearly break some things. I can
use sha256 repositories in gitea today (no interop whatsoever) but
github rejects them.

Then again cloning a repository uses the correct hash which means if I
create the repository on the forge and clone it there is no problem
whatsoever regardless of hash used. Whill that break as well?

Thanks

Michal