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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
> 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).
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.
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?
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.
> 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?
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?
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.
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
> 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?
> 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.)
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
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.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/Z_OGMb-1oV0Ex05e@pks.im/T/#mf941...
[2] https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/user-ch...
Having switched to jj I totally agree. Change IDs are a huge UX win.
It appears that BitBucket also does not currently support SHA256 hashes.
https://jira.atlassian.com/browse/BCLOUD-23729
> Try LWN for free for 0 month: no payment or credit card required.
Quite a generous offer!
</aside>
`git add --resolved` is a wonderful idea, and definitely something I would start using.
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.
TFA literally notes that one if the key sha256 devs is a github employee and in favor of the transition.
And sha256 is in private preview at GitHub: https://github.com/bk2204/talk-rust-in-git/blob/dev/presenta...
Are they going to fix all the bad defaults in Git 3.0?
For reference, what would you say those bad defaults are? (I would like to know if I should consider changing my configuration)
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] https://blog.gitbutler.com/how-git-core-devs-configure-git
rerere should be on
Here are a few:
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.)
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?
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
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.
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.
I don't know much about this. How does that enable vulnerabilities exactly?
Trusting a forced push w/o any other verification means nefarious history changes can be slipped in.
Semi-relevant-ish: https://blog.citp.princeton.edu/2013/10/09/the-linux-backdoo...
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
Um. how do you verify the contents? The history is for the contents you now have, not what might have been
It is regrettable that they're trying to coerce the use of Rust everywhere just for the sake of it. It's a nonsense that is now forced on everyone.
The comments gives a link to a recent talk about the motivation for using Rust in Git: 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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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?
Aside from the fact that it's not solved by using an alternative compiler, why would you put the core advantage aside?
> 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).
Behold: https://fil-c.org/
An important improvement over rust is that "Fil-C has no unsafe statement."
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.
Rust is slower too, and git is IO bound anyway, and routinely calls bash.
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.
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?
Is all use of Rust "coerced" and "forced on everyone", or is there a way to write things in it that makes sense?
I don't think it's "just for the sake of it". I think they believe that the Rust code will be safer.
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.
> 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.
[0]: https://security.googleblog.com/2024/09/eliminating-memory-s...
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?
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?
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.
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
I hope you don't use seatbelts in your car, as they won't help you against a fire.
> 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?
> 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.)
> 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
There are lots of places it'd be useful to use Git that don't have filesystems.
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?