So they’ve been talking about this for many years, planning, and finally announce when they’re going to switch the default.

So this is the right time to post that everything they’re doing is wrong? Did you engage in all the discussions about it and how best to handle it? Whether SHA-256 was the best solution?

I don’t see anywhere that it talks about alternate proposals or why they might have been better. Why the particular suggestions here were rejected.

This seems like a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacking.

▲

schacon 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I do mention this in like the first paragraph. I don't feel great about it, but I've listened to these issues for years now during contributor summits and Git Merge talks and while it's always seemed problematic, I thought they would come up with a good solution. This last Git Merge confirmed that it's close to the switch and not in any way solved or improved. I don't want to just go with it for groupthink reasons. I never thought it was a good idea and I have said that, but we have a last chance to rethink this, so I'm curious if I'm alone or in the silent majority.

▲

throwworhtthrow 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Your argument is persuasive and well illustrated. I think the problem is the intro paragraphs come off as too certain of catastrophe which, when juxtaposed with your claim that "smarter people than me have been working on this", makes it sound like you don't actually believe they're smarter than you. The rest of your essay feels fair and not judgmental.

▲

schacon 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I do believe they're smarter than me, but sometimes very smart groups talk themselves into ultimately impractical solutions because they're all smart. Sometimes you need a dumb guy to come in and say "are you sure this is right?"

▲

throwworhtthrow 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I believe you are sincere. But "is about to be a huge, costly, global train wreck" lacks the nuance of "are you sure this is right?" and will rub some people the wrong way.

Edit: I'm not suggesting you should have written it any differently. I think you made the right choice to be a bit provocative because it grabs the attention that's needed.

	▲	schacon 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I do believe this. But that doesn't mean I can't be convinced otherwise by a good argument. The point of this post is to see if anyone has a great counterargument to change my mind.

▲

nofunsir 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The plans have been on display in a cellar. Beware of the leopard.

▲

bawolff 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This isn't really applicable. The plans have been talked about for a while very publicly.

▲

MBCook 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don’t understand what this is supposed to mean.

▲

NikolaNovak 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's a hitchhiker guide to the galaxy reference, where sure, something is technically available but not clearly published and there are hoops even for those who know what they're looking for.

(No clue if it's applicable here, I'm not aware of this case, but I believe that's the reference if it helps :)

Edit : exact quote, as Arthur's house is about to be demolished for a highway bypass:

"But the plans were on display…”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.

	▲	Dylan16807 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's not at all applicable.

▲

zygentoma 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I believe it's a reference to the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy – where the plans to remove the protagonists building to build a bypass road was hidden in this way.

▲

fragmede 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

nofunsir is a stoichastic parrot, matching to a bit in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, wherin the protagonist should have known to protest a plan to demolish his home where plans where clearly documented in a hard to find place that they could not have known about. It is not a good pattern match, because git has been discussing this in public on documented mailing lists for years.

▲

nofunsir 8 hours ago | parent [-]

No I'm not. Real thumbs here. If anything this paragraph sounds like LLM slop

▲

fragmede 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Run it through pangram if you want, I wrote it with my human brain. What I did not do, however, was parrot an inapplicable quote.

In what way has git's discussion of their move been hidden away in a metaphorical basement?

▲

pcthrowaway 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That comment was short enough that you'd really have to be naive to think a tool could reasonably detect if it was authored by an LLM.

Additionally, as someone who read Hitchiker's guide to the Galaxy ~3 decades ago, I managed to suspect it was a reference to it, even if the reference wasn't the most applicable

▲

nofunsir 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm sure the cellar was also documented, Arthur eventually found it, did he not?

Mailing lists are basements in 2026

	▲	fragmede 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Since 1999, we've had Google to help people find things. True, a mailing list isn't an Instagram reel delivered directly to your face with audio and blasted out on Fox News, but if one was interested in the development of git, an LLM or a Google search would readily tell you about the existence of those mailing lists.

▲

kazinator 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

A number of years ago when I heard about this, I was pretty angry and made a private fork of git immediately in which I tried to scrub away the SHA-256 bullshit. But that's basically just paddling upstream with a spoon for a oar.

The stewards of Git are going to do whatever they want, and there is nothing you can do about it if you don't have the clout to create a fork that takes the lead.

No amount of discussion will do anything because they've already decided that their view of the situation is correct. Git hashes are not just content identification but a digital certificate mechanism, and their collision resistance is a grave issue that must be fixed, the end.

You will be browbeaten in any discussion; it's not worth the energy in a world replete with issues.