git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Is the sha256 object format experimental or not?
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 22:42:36 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YJm23HESQb1Z6h8y@camp.crustytoothpaste.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87lf8mu642.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2480 bytes --]

On 2021-05-10 at 12:22:00, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> 
> On Sun, May 09 2021, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > You can't do that.  SHA-256 repositories already exist and that would
> > break compatibility.
> 
> From memory this is at least the second time you've brought up this
> point on-list.
> 
> My feeling is that almost nobody's using sha256 currently, and we have a
> very prominent ALL CAPS warning saying the format is experimental and
> may change, see ff233d8dda1 (Documentation: mark
> `--object-format=sha256` as experimental, 2020-08-16).

Yes, I agreed to such text because others thought it was a good idea in
case we needed to make a change.  However, we don't need to make an
incompatible change here, so we should avoid that if possible.

Almost nobody is using it because the main forges don't yet support it,
because it's going to be just as much work to support it there as it has
been in Git.  We won't be making it easier by making deliberately
incompatible changes when we don't have to.

> I agree with the docs as they stand, and don't think we should hold back
> on changing the object format for sha256 in general if there's a
> compelling reason to do so.

I am using it and I know of other people who are using it.  There are
people whose companies cannot use SHA-1 for compliance reasons and are
already making use of it.

The problem here is a chicken and egg: nobody's going to use SHA-256
support if it's experimental and their entire repo might end up totally
useless, and it's not going to become stable if nobody uses it.

> But it seems to me that if the main person pushing the sha256 effort
> disagrees with the content of
> Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt, we'd be better off at this
> point discussing a patch to change the wording there to something to the
> effect that we consider the format set in stone at this point.

I've been pretty clear up front that I thought the data was stable and
we should avoid making incompatible changes.  It may be that it is still
experimental and may change incompatibly, but if we can avoid that
problem, we should.

I don't personally intend to send a patch removing the note about it
being experimental until I've finished getting object interop done,
since that's the major issue where we might need to make an incompatible
change, but that work is moving slowly.
-- 
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Houston, Texas, US

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-10 22:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-05-08  2:22 Preserving the ability to have both SHA1 and SHA256 signatures dwh
2021-05-08  6:39 ` Christian Couder
2021-05-08  6:56   ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-08  8:03     ` Felipe Contreras
2021-05-08 10:11       ` Stefan Moch
2021-05-08 11:12         ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-09  0:19 ` brian m. carlson
2021-05-10 12:22   ` Is the sha256 object format experimental or not? Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-10 22:42     ` brian m. carlson [this message]
2021-05-13 20:29       ` dwh
2021-05-13 20:49         ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-05-13 23:47           ` dwh
2021-05-14 13:45             ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2021-05-14 17:39               ` dwh
2021-05-13 21:03         ` Junio C Hamano
2021-05-13 23:26           ` dwh
2021-05-14  8:49           ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-05-14 18:10             ` dwh
2021-05-18  5:32         ` Jonathan Nieder

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YJm23HESQb1Z6h8y@camp.crustytoothpaste.net \
    --to=sandals@crustytoothpaste.net \
    --cc=avarab@gmail.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).