Rendered at 11:04:16 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
jodersky 3 hours ago [-]
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 identify all previous versions of a change, and is what enables "per-commit" code review à la Gerrit [2] (which IMO is a much better experience than the branch-review-squash model that GitHub normalized). It's also used in jj, although I'm not familiar with that.
As of today, any tool that wants a change ID needs to somehow encode it in commit message bodies. The proposed discussion was about making a change ID a standard header field that git would natively keep across rebases.
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 seem to be a hot topic on the ML.
What I would like to see is support for `git rebase` not dropping it, which is the current main issue. The `git replay` command, as well as commands based on the same sequencing code (`git history` for example) do not drop custom headers like this, so there is partial non-breakage, but several of the other history editing commands do drop custom headers.
ncphillips 3 hours ago [-]
Having switched to jj I totally agree. Change IDs are a huge UX win.
stabbles 2 hours ago [-]
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.
penguin_booze 43 minutes ago [-]
Waiting for 3.0 to land and emancipate us from our 'master's. Bringing about true social change, one SHA at a time.
GTP 1 hours ago [-]
Why not transitioning to SHA3 directly? IIRC lenght extension attacks are not currently feasible on SHA2, but still theoretically possible.
notpushkin 3 hours ago [-]
> Try LWN for free for 0 month: no payment or credit card required.
Quite a generous offer!
</aside>
WCSTombs 11 hours ago [-]
`git add --resolved` is a wonderful idea, and definitely something I would start using.
moebrowne 4 hours ago [-]
It appears that BitBucket also does not currently support SHA256 hashes.
Will we ever get integer commit references like we have in mercurial ?
KolmogorovComp 11 hours ago [-]
Does it mean that when switching trop sha1 to sha256 you need to forcepush and rewrite all history? Wouldn’t that be a massive source of potential vulnerabilities?
schacon 1 hours ago [-]
It's much, much worse than that.
Yes, you do need to do that. However, there is also much more work after that.
Git will not intermingle SHA-256 and SHA-1 enabled repositories, even in things like submodules, so anything used in that manner will need to keep both versions into the indefinite future. If you rely on a submodule that has not yet converted, you will have to convert it yourself and try to keep it up to date, or the forge will have to automatically keep a bidirectional mirror (if you have submodules in various forges, you'll have to wait for all of them to do it), etc.
This means that every SHA referenced anywhere on the internet, in commit messages, in issues, in code comments is now invalid and needs a mapping to find the rewritten one for forever.
It also means that every commit signature ever made is now invalid and will probably have to be stripped from the rewritten new 256 history because it's impossible to resign everything.
Companies like Google and GitHub are working on keeping two versions of each repository so that there can be long stages of ecosystem migrations, but no matter what, it's going to be a huge pain for millions of developers for years to come.
nextaccountic 7 hours ago [-]
That's odd. Why not compute both sha1 and sha256 for all git objects for the foreseeable future?
Failing that, have a kind of git object that wraps another and says hey this is in sha1 don't mess with it
em-bee 10 hours ago [-]
i guess that for now only the default will change for new repositories. support for sha1 is not going to be dropped, so most existing repositories won't switch any time soon. if you want to switch then yes, it sounds like a force push might be needed, although it could also be that simply switching is not possible, but that instead you have to create a new repo and import the history from the old repo, forcing everyone to clone the new repo intentionally.
infogulch 8 hours ago [-]
Couldn't you write something that checks every commit's content and message is byte equal to the old tree? One scan through the history to verify it should be relatively simple if not cheap. Should be built into git.
nomel 11 hours ago [-]
I don't know much about this. How does that enable vulnerabilities exactly?
jayd16 11 hours ago [-]
Trusting a forced push w/o any other verification means nefarious history changes can be slipped in.
You can still verify the contents - the content blobs don’t change after the migration. Not sure if there’s a practical attack one could do but maybe
awesome_dude 5 hours ago [-]
Um. how do you verify the contents? The history is for the contents you now have, not what might have been
Razengan 2 hours ago [-]
I'm still looking for a simple way to "save" a snapshot of my work in git, without all the ceremony of stashing etc
gregoriol 2 hours ago [-]
What could be simpler than "$ git stash" and "$ git stash pop" ?
m000 1 hours ago [-]
Not sure what you are looking for. What's wrong with stash? What ceremony are you referring to? `git stash` - `git stash pop` is as simple as it gets.
Then you can also do `git diff > changes.diff`. Or simply `rsync -avPh repo/ repo.snap/`, if your repo isn't huge. Or consider putting your repo in a filesystem that can do CoW snapshots.
leni536 1 hours ago [-]
I always just create a branch
moebrowne 42 minutes ago [-]
I used to do this purely so that I could attach a name, then I found out that you can add a message when stashing: `git stash push -m "trying a thing"`
IshKebab 4 hours ago [-]
Are they going to fix all the bad defaults in Git 3.0?
onetoo 4 hours ago [-]
For reference, what would you say those bad defaults are?
(I would like to know if I should consider changing my configuration)
iib 4 hours ago [-]
There is a post[1] on the gitbutler blog where they collect a subset of defaults that allegedly git core developers use. It's where I got most of my config from.
1. Git push should default to --force-with-lease --force-if-includes.
2. push.autoSetupRemote should be enabled by default.
3. The default conflict style should be zdiff3.
4. diff.submodule should be 'log' by default (gives much nicer submodule diffs).
5. Submodule updates / clones should be recursive by default. (There is a setting for this but I can't remember it.)
Oxodao 3 hours ago [-]
rerere should be on
globular-toast 6 hours 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.
masklinn 4 hours ago [-]
TFA literally notes that one if the key sha256 devs is a github employee and in favor of the transition.
I wouldn't agree with all of those reasons, but it's very definitely not "just for the sake of it." One of the better reasons so many people look to writing some things in Rust is that we now have pretty ample evidence than trying to write a binary file format parser in C is a cornucopia of CVEs that are just simply absent in Rust, and the excuse of "well, but a sufficiently smart programmer doesn't write bugs in C" doesn't cut it anymore.
coliveira 8 hours ago [-]
Somehow we have binary file format parsers written in C everywhere, so the real world shows it is possible and we do have programmers capable of doing it.
112233 7 hours ago [-]
Somehow we also have memory safety bugs everywhere, too. So real world shows bugs in C code are possible. What even is your argument? Real men write asm?
jcranmer 7 hours ago [-]
Sure, we can write a binary file format parser in C. We just can't figure out how to write one that isn't buggy and lets someone infect your computer if you give it sufficiently inventive garbage.
eviks 7 hours ago [-]
The issue isn't whether it's possible to have parsers, but whether it's possible to have them be secure, and periodic CVEs "everywhere" suggest we don't
cxr 7 hours ago [-]
Aside from memory safety, which is solved by using a compiler that just doesn't allow unsafe memory operations (so not GCC or Clang upstream), which CVEs specifically would have been ameliorated by a parser written in Rust instead of C?
eviks 6 hours ago [-]
Aside from the fact that it's not solved by using an alternative compiler, why would you put the core advantage aside?
duskwuff 6 hours ago [-]
> Aside from memory safety, which is solved by using a compiler that just doesn't allow unsafe memory operations
I don't see how that's possible without turning the language into something that isn't C, either by adding significant new functionality (e.g. fat pointers) or subtracting enough functionality that it's a much less capable language (e.g. disallowing dynamic memory allocation).
An important improvement over rust is that "Fil-C has no unsafe statement."
rpadovani 5 hours ago [-]
As everything, there are compromises and prices to pay.
In case of fil-c, it is about 1.5-4x slower performance, and a memory overhead.
So, let's not present it as a panacea to all problems: there could good reasons to use it, but it isn't a magic trick.
GoblinSlayer 4 hours ago [-]
Rust is slower too, and git is IO bound anyway, and routinely calls bash.
serbuvlad 4 hours ago [-]
fwiw, the use of C is infinitely more "coerced" than the use of Rust.
on my Linux system, C takes ownership of a 'top-level' /usr/include directory, all the kernel APIs have their canonical definitions in C headers, a lot of system features like nsswitch require dynamically linked C libraries etc. etc.
Rust is just something that programs can choose to be written in and that doesn't inconvenience me in any way.
epidemian 7 hours ago [-]
Of the codebases i know that have adopted Rust, it has always been because some of their maintainers wanted to do so.
Maybe git's case is different though. Do you have more info about it? Are you a git maintainer who was coerced to use Rust, or do you know of such cases?
devilsdata 4 hours ago [-]
Is all use of Rust "coerced" and "forced on everyone", or is there a way to write things in it that makes sense?
tombert 8 hours ago [-]
I don't think it's "just for the sake of it". I think they believe that the Rust code will be safer.
coliveira 8 hours ago [-]
If that's the case, they should stop using git and Linux right now, because it's everything written in C. Having 0.1% of the code in a safe language will not change anything, it's only a bad security blanket.
aw1621107 7 hours ago [-]
> Having 0.1% of the code in a safe language will not change anything, it's only a bad security blanket.
Just because something does provide an immediate perfect solution does not mean it isn't not worth investigating and/or pursuing.
Also consider that bugs tend to be more prevalent in new code (e.g., [0]) as a result, you are likely to see more of a benefit from writing new code in a memory-safe language than raw line count proportions would indicate.
You don't believe in slowly and iteratively improving a codebase over time? Should git stick with its weird mishmash of C and perl and shell scripts forever, for tradition's sake, performance and maintainability be damned?
devilsdata 4 hours ago [-]
I don't understand your reasoning. Why should they quit git and Linux (and presumably all applications written in C) if they believe Rust is more secure than C?
Joker_vD 3 hours ago [-]
It's the classic "Yet you participate in society. Curious!" response. You don't get dislike the current state of the world if you exists in it, apparently.
shakow 3 hours ago [-]
I hope you don't use seatbelts in your car, as they won't help you against a fire.
baq 5 hours ago [-]
Rewriting it all in rust with bug for bug compatibility and byte identical outputs won’t cost more than $100k in tokens, but I don’t think this is an answer you’re looking for
7 hours ago [-]
drgo 9 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
eviks 7 hours ago [-]
> 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,
Good, are there (m)any other plans to ditch the slow files and use proper database? Or is it only reserved for various post-git competitors?
schacon 1 hours ago [-]
Yes, Patrick Steinhart (GitLab) has been working not only on reftables and pluggable backends for the references data, but also pluggable backends for object storage, so that you can use any database backend format (sqlite, s3, special large file storage options, etc) to store objects if you want (in addition to loose objects and packfiles).
This is work that Patrick and GitLab have been doing for years now and it's very impressive and nearly complete.
cesarb 7 hours ago [-]
> Good, are there (m)any other plans to ditch the slow files and use proper database?
The filesystem is a proper database, just not a relational one.
Linus focused heavily on performance when he wrote git; he used the filesystem because, as the main Linux kernel maintainer, he knew that the Linux VFS and filesystems were fast enough for these use cases.
(It's the use cases that have changed; it was not expected back then to have more than a few hundred refs in a single repository.)
spankalee 5 hours ago [-]
There are lots of places it'd be useful to use Git that don't have filesystems.
eviks 6 hours ago [-]
> more than a few hundred refs
Ah, yeah, "you're holding it wrong", though use cases haven't changed, it's closer to the expected common case of expectations turning out wildy wrong (Why would you ever expect people to stop NAMING things at scale???)
But also the core property of the filesystem database has always been low performance for a bunch of tiny things
ithkuil 26 minutes ago [-]
It's not just slowness, but what about case insensitive filesystems?
112233 7 hours ago [-]
By "proper" I assume you mean relational? Or ACID? Or you mean using existing database software? What is so improper about the way git stores data?
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 identify all previous versions of a change, and is what enables "per-commit" code review à la Gerrit [2] (which IMO is a much better experience than the branch-review-squash model that GitHub normalized). It's also used in jj, although I'm not familiar with that.
As of today, any tool that wants a change ID needs to somehow encode it in commit message bodies. The proposed discussion was about making a change ID a standard header field that git would natively keep across rebases.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/Z_OGMb-1oV0Ex05e@pks.im/T/#mf941...
[2] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/user-ch...
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 seem to be a hot topic on the ML.
What I would like to see is support for `git rebase` not dropping it, which is the current main issue. The `git replay` command, as well as commands based on the same sequencing code (`git history` for example) do not drop custom headers like this, so there is partial non-breakage, but several of the other history editing commands do drop custom headers.
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.
Quite a generous offer!
</aside>
https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/BCLOUD-23729
Yes, you do need to do that. However, there is also much more work after that.
Git will not intermingle SHA-256 and SHA-1 enabled repositories, even in things like submodules, so anything used in that manner will need to keep both versions into the indefinite future. If you rely on a submodule that has not yet converted, you will have to convert it yourself and try to keep it up to date, or the forge will have to automatically keep a bidirectional mirror (if you have submodules in various forges, you'll have to wait for all of them to do it), etc.
This means that every SHA referenced anywhere on the internet, in commit messages, in issues, in code comments is now invalid and needs a mapping to find the rewritten one for forever.
It also means that every commit signature ever made is now invalid and will probably have to be stripped from the rewritten new 256 history because it's impossible to resign everything.
Companies like Google and GitHub are working on keeping two versions of each repository so that there can be long stages of ecosystem migrations, but no matter what, it's going to be a huge pain for millions of developers for years to come.
Failing that, have a kind of git object that wraps another and says hey this is in sha1 don't mess with it
Then you can also do `git diff > changes.diff`. Or simply `rsync -avPh repo/ repo.snap/`, if your repo isn't huge. Or consider putting your repo in a filesystem that can do CoW snapshots.
[1] https://blog.gitbutler.com/how-git-core-devs-configure-git
1. Git push should default to --force-with-lease --force-if-includes.
2. push.autoSetupRemote should be enabled by default.
3. The default conflict style should be zdiff3.
4. diff.submodule should be 'log' by default (gives much nicer submodule diffs).
5. Submodule updates / clones should be recursive by default. (There is a setting for this but I can't remember it.)
And sha256 is in private preview at GitHub: https://github.com/bk2204/talk-rust-in-git/blob/dev/presenta...
I wouldn't agree with all of those reasons, but it's very definitely not "just for the sake of it." One of the better reasons so many people look to writing some things in Rust is that we now have pretty ample evidence than trying to write a binary file format parser in C is a cornucopia of CVEs that are just simply absent in Rust, and the excuse of "well, but a sufficiently smart programmer doesn't write bugs in C" doesn't cut it anymore.
I don't see how that's possible without turning the language into something that isn't C, either by adding significant new functionality (e.g. fat pointers) or subtracting enough functionality that it's a much less capable language (e.g. disallowing dynamic memory allocation).
An important improvement over rust is that "Fil-C has no unsafe statement."
In case of fil-c, it is about 1.5-4x slower performance, and a memory overhead.
So, let's not present it as a panacea to all problems: there could good reasons to use it, but it isn't a magic trick.
on my Linux system, C takes ownership of a 'top-level' /usr/include directory, all the kernel APIs have their canonical definitions in C headers, a lot of system features like nsswitch require dynamically linked C libraries etc. etc.
Rust is just something that programs can choose to be written in and that doesn't inconvenience me in any way.
Maybe git's case is different though. Do you have more info about it? Are you a git maintainer who was coerced to use Rust, or do you know of such cases?
Just because something does provide an immediate perfect solution does not mean it isn't not worth investigating and/or pursuing.
Also consider that bugs tend to be more prevalent in new code (e.g., [0]) as a result, you are likely to see more of a benefit from writing new code in a memory-safe language than raw line count proportions would indicate.
[0]: https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-s...
Good, are there (m)any other plans to ditch the slow files and use proper database? Or is it only reserved for various post-git competitors?
This is work that Patrick and GitLab have been doing for years now and it's very impressive and nearly complete.
The filesystem is a proper database, just not a relational one.
Linus focused heavily on performance when he wrote git; he used the filesystem because, as the main Linux kernel maintainer, he knew that the Linux VFS and filesystems were fast enough for these use cases.
(It's the use cases that have changed; it was not expected back then to have more than a few hundred refs in a single repository.)
Ah, yeah, "you're holding it wrong", though use cases haven't changed, it's closer to the expected common case of expectations turning out wildy wrong (Why would you ever expect people to stop NAMING things at scale???)
But also the core property of the filesystem database has always been low performance for a bunch of tiny things