Article also picked up on Lobsters
3 Sep 22 1:23 AM · 2d ago · 1 post · 1 source · development 3 of 3
The same LWN piece was separately submitted to Lobsters, indicating continued interest among developers in the Git 2.56/3.0 roadmap.
Junio Hamano Git project maintainerJonathan Corbet LWN editor and author of the article
The whole story articlesposts the bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
What people said 24 voices · best of 29 · verbatim
-
If you've been a long-time LWN reader, you get to know Jonathan Corbet's style. I really love his dry humor which is often expressed by simply stating plain facts in a certain arrangement. He is an excellent writer and the main reason why I support LWN.
-
It's unfortunate that change IDs aren't considered. There was a discussion [1] in 2025, and it has resurfaced a couple of times since.Basically, the idea is to attribute a new kind of ID to an initial 'change'. During review, or whenever a commit is rebased, the change ID is kept, whereas the commit of course changes. This allows tooling to…
-
K
Some deep snark in this excellent LWN article on upcoming Git releases (paid link -- I didn't feel right generating a subscriber share-link for a public Fediverse post, though who knows maybe LWN would rather I did): Those commands, create, delete, update, and rename, perhaps surprisingly for Git, do exactly what their names suggest they would.
-
There is some solid snark in this article 😄 > Unfortunately, it still refuses to work if the history contains merge commits, making it unusable for many (or most) repositories. > It still, though, will say that a branch is "up to date" even if it lags behind an (unfetched) remote tracking branch. > Those commands, create, delete, update, and…
-
> The Git 2.45 release added reftables as a more efficient way of storing refs. It is a binary file optimized for both space efficiency and quick access. Since then, it has been possible to create a repository that uses a reftable rather than the old file-based mechanism, but that has never been the default. Switching to reftable should have no…
-
> It still, though, will say that a branch is "up to date" even if it lags behind an (unfetched) remote tracking branch. I was just talking to some folks at the Git conference about this issue this week. I've been doing a bunch of work on Git's documentation and I've learned a lot about how contributing to Git works. If you're a C programmer who…
-
JJ and GitButler already create and inject this into the commit headers (using the same interoperable reverse-hex format), which is recognized by Gerrit and some forges like Tangled for incremental commit based review.I doubt that core Git will adopt it anytime soon as it was not discussed at this years contributor summit (last week) and doesn't…
-
> There are a number of minor usability tweaks. The new --delete-merged option to git branch will remove local branches that have been merged into their remote tracking branches. Ooh! Maybe this can finally replace the [prune-branches "hack"](
-
I'm looking forward to reftable to become the default. It solves many problems with branches, like branches with weird characters created with non-standard clients making a fetch impossible; case insensitive branches with "same" names doing the same; or impossible to create branch FOO because FOO/Something exists.All those problems just go away…
-
> Unfortunately, it still refuses to work if the history contains merge commits, making it unusable for many (or most) repositories. Ugh. The bane of all projects. That one guy who won't learn how rebase works
-
So Git, in version 3.0, is moving to SHA-256 by default for SHA-1 ain't considered that strong anymore but...What about future attacks by quantum computers? Is Git safe from quantum computers for it's all hashes only? Or shall there be issues with quantum attacks?I'm asking for there are several projects that are already moving to…
-
I have just had rebase->merge ripped away from me at work because if you do that to a claudebot/explicitly vibeslopped PR it won't autodeploy with ${MEME_PLATFORM}.
-
Yeah, "standardizing" change IDs would make it much easier to develop further tooling around it. In particular decentralized review is something that I'd be interested in.For example, if GitHub is down, that would not be a blocker to access review comments or to do reviews. And maybe you could push your reviews to a GitLab mirror if you want a UI.
-
Even just a textual change so that it stops "lying" would be really useful. ``` Your branch is up to date with 'origin/main', as of 2026-09-21 13:37. Your branch is up to date with 'origin/main', as of two days ago. ```
-
Why am I not surprised that GitHub is dragging its heels on sha256? I assume they just aren't able to change fundamental parts of their system now. So no sha256, no IPv6 etc. They can only sprinkle bits around the edges.
-
At $work we disallow any form of force pushing to any branch to keep every change's history immutable. It's a fight I hope to win on one day, but for now... (It also doesn't help that e.g. GitHub out of the box makes it super hard to actually reason about the evolution of a change, sigh.)
-
Why not transitioning to SHA3 directly? IIRC lenght extension attacks are not currently feasible on SHA2, but still theoretically possible.
-
Yeah, I don't know if it's possible to do that (I think that Git may not always know when `origin/main` was last updated) but I think it would be interesting to investigate.
-
I'm still looking for a simple way to "save" a snapshot of my work in git, without all the ceremony of stashing etc
-
Is this (the SHA change) going to be the new Python 2 vs. 3 saga?
-
Waiting for 3.0 to land and emancipate us from our 'master's. Bringing about true social change, one SHA at a time.
-
As long as you are the only one working on a given branch.
-
> Try LWN for free for 0 month: no payment or credit card required.Quite a generous offer!</aside>
-
Can you maintain commit signatures when rebasing?
All 3 developments of Git maintainers weigh jumping straight to Git 3.0 after 2.56 →
NewswiresHacker NewsMastodonLobsters