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.
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.
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.
> 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
`git add --resolved` is a wonderful idea, and definitely something I would start using.
> Try LWN for free for 0 month: no payment or credit card required.
Quite a generous offer!
</aside>
I'm still looking for a simple way to "save" a snapshot of my work in git, without all the ceremony of stashing etc
What could be simpler than "$ git stash" and "$ git stash pop" ?
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
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
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.)
rerere should be on
> 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?