From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB0AD1F531 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 20:50:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726804AbgHGUuW (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:50:22 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:59605 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725934AbgHGUuW (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:50:22 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94A3087AE2; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:50:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=6DCmGn7NQKLv pXTBLjRCKaCtY3w=; b=roNiMSBM5UFIG5SV+tfq24uj8TYgNA5E1P+xpSzOidJh utiUSdjjIRtnat0UrBtdwBZUjdEZC2qT2tIZPFvVGkmF2PbBLNn2yL5gwQuQIKd7 k5H+TekcaqQ35HHyz44dKIKUPRw3aNdx5VGob9n23bPuFxPw/pgJ/qC4d9z3exA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=yafqJ4 g9/jQX2BWq2sVJfd+mM0vu18oeVM5zIIQ5eFpqyn70h6UJIZd9v1iCEcVkgSlhF0 I0ETHZXnAcGr0KqWFEv38jwHiWIwjRE/pV4Vl2X6U0sStq36Fy1tkR50PKDhtHIp wEGfZWQQiZBKGLErpXwGGyagKLpCZbBp749kw= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C1EC87AE1; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:50:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EC3387AE0; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:50:18 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren?= Cc: "brian m. carlson" , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: mark `--object-format=sha256` as experimental References: <20200806202358.2265705-1-martin.agren@gmail.com> <20200806230837.GA8085@camp.crustytoothpaste.net> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:50:17 -0700 In-Reply-To: ("Martin =?utf-8?Q?=C3=85gren=22's?= message of "Fri, 7 Aug 2020 16:08:10 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 9A0B61DA-D8EF-11EA-B41D-01D9BED8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Martin =C3=85gren writes: >> I'm fine with marking the functionality experimental for a few release= s, >> since it is possible we have bugs people haven't found, and adding a >> note about interoperability after that point, since I think that's a >> fair and valuable issue. I think if we go a few releases without any >> major issues, we can change this to the following: >> >> Note that a SHA-256 repository cannot yet share work with "regular" >> SHA-1 repositories. Many tools do not yet understand SHA-256 >> repositories, so users may wish to take this into account when >> creating new repositories. > > With respect, I think that's too aggressive. By that time, we may > conclude that, e.g., the "v2 pack indices with SHA-256" file handling i= s > robust. But I'd be surprised if using `git init --object-format=3Dsha25= 6` > in June 2021 won't cause *some* extra work for users or ourselves > further down the line compared to using a regular SHA-1 `git init`. > Pushing to a SHA-1 hosting service will become *possible* at some point= , > but maybe it won't be *efficient enough to be practical in the real > world* until some time after that. IOW, you question "if we go a few releases without any major issues" part? I tend to agree that for a large change like this, a few releases may not be sufficiently long time for a feature that is marked as experimental in big flashing red letters to get exercised enough to get major issues noticed. > All those other, *new* file formats outlined in the hash > transition document won't exist at that time (at least not in master). > > Now would probably be a good time to update the hash transition > documents, first of all to tick off what we've already done, and second= , > to reassess the rest. Yes, it is a good idea to stop and see where in the overall large picture we currently are. Thanks.