There's been discussion at the Contributor Summit about when we should
release Git 3.0.  The original plan that was discussed was to release in
about a year, which is about 4 releases away.

Almost all of the functionality that we had wanted in Git 3.0 has been
implemented.  The two major things we may want to consider as blockers
for Git 3.0 are the following:

* The SHA-256 interoperability work is not done yet.  My estimate of
  this work is 200–400 patches, of which about 100 are done.  If the
  original schedule is maintained, this would require writing up to 75
  patches and sending in 100 patches per cycle, which is unrealistic
  without additional contributors.
* Some forges and other projects do not yet have full SHA-256 support.
  It's my understanding that all of the major forges are undertaking or
  have undertaken this work and are at various levels of completion, but
  it's not clear that other projects have appropriate support.

We may also wish to stick to a stricter timeframe for this release
regardless and make four releases from now or the next release a year
away Git 3.0 regardless of whether those items above are completed.

Discussions at the Contributor Summit did mention the advantage of
having a hard deadline would be that it would make projects and forges
spend the time to implement SHA-256 support if they're lacking it.

I personally do not want the interoperability work to be a blocker.  I
haven't really heard other commitments of contributors who want to work
on it and I don't really want to have to run full tilt trying to get it
out.  However, some other people may feel differently, in which I case I
encourage their participation in the project.

What do others think about this?
-- 
brian m. carlson (they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA