Replies (1)

• @DomeGuy@lemmy.world 2026-10-03 18:40

  I read that whole article, and aside from an unsourced statement that GitHub et al will need “new and distinct servers” exactly zero of that seemed to support the thesis that a SHA-256 default was going to be “expensive”. Submodules are not the preferred way to incorporate third-party code for any environment I know. And while web-exposed URLs for management tools like Jira or AzureDevOps will need to adapt before the new default can be used, doing so even with a wholesale re-hashing of every commit isn’t technically difficult. What would be terrible and dangerous would be if git 3.0 entirely dropped SHA-1 support. But just as you’re free to keep on using “master” instead of “main”, i expect that extant projects will still be supported until a version after every major project has converted to SHA-256 or what have you.

  Open ##5030686