Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Adam Majer <adamm@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I'll try again with inline patch. >> >> From 90be51143e741053390810720ba4a639c3b0b74c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > Remove all the above lines (including the "From <commit object > ... >> Signed-off-by: Adam Majer <adamm@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Documentation/git.txt | 4 ++-- >> Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt | 8 ++------ >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) >> ... > This side looks OK (just removing the single sentence). > >> Git Commits >> ~~~~~~~~~~~ >> diff --git a/Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt b/Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt >> index 4cb106f0d1..1e976688be 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/object-format-disclaimer.txt >> @@ -1,6 +1,2 @@ >> ... > > The original did not have this problem because it had enough > surrounding context, but the updated text now risks getting misread > as if there are "regular" and "special" SHA-1 repositories, the > latter of which might work better with SHA-256. > > And the message about SHA-256's non-experimental status can probably > be a lot stronger, after the discussion we had recently. How about > saying something like: > > Note: there is no interoperability between SHA-256 repositories > and SHA-1 repositories right now. We historically warned that > SHA-256 repositories may need backward incompatible changes > later when we introduce such interoperability features, but at > this point we do not expect that we need to make such a change > when we do so, and the users can expect that their SHA-256 > repositories they create with today's Git will be usable by > future versions of Git without losing information. > > which would probably be much closer to what you wanted to hear? It has been a week. Any news on this topic? Thanks.
