Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Enable Rust by default

From: "brian m. carlson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 21:48:10 +0000

On 2026-04-10 at 21:13:42, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "brian m. carlson" <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
> > This was actually sent out just before rc0, but Patrick requested some
> > changes in v1.  (I forgot to thread it to the previous version,
> > unfortunately.)
> 
> Proudly saying "It was sent before rc0", as if that gave community
> plenty of time to adjust, is not something I was expecting to hear.
> 
> "This is expected to be a big impact change, so I am sending it
> before -rc0 of this cycle, so that it can be in the first batch that
> graduates to 'master' for the next cycle" would have been a lot more
> understandable, though.

This change was announced on the list and in the documentation, so its
appearance should not be a surprise.

I didn't realize that I was sending it directly before -rc0 because I'm
not usually very attuned to the timeframe in between releases, to be
honest.  I usually send patches as my schedule allows and I try to fix
anything I've broken relatively quickly and even faster in the -rc
period, and I generally let you decide how and when to merge them.

In this particular case, I merely remembered that it was something we
committed to because I actually was looking at the BreakingChanges
document for other reasons, so I sent a patch as soon as possible.  That
just happened to be right before -rc0.  Had I remembered earlier, I
would of course have sent the patch earlier.  It appears, however, that
we all had a memory lapse in this case and I do apologize for my part in
that.

I don't have a strong opinion here and if you prefer, we can defer to
2.55.  I agree that would be less risky at this point in the release
cycle and, of course, you are the maintainer.

I have been operating under the assumption that Git 3.0 is destined for
September 2026 based on the discussions we had at the September 2024
Contributors' Summit in Berlin where we said 1–2 years, as well as other
discussions on the list, and that is the message I have been
communicating to other people and projects[0].  I am fully aware that
that date might slip due to various reasons[1], but I do very much want
to get as many things set up as possible so people can test and there
will be fewer surprises, which was of course the reason for sending in
this series.  I imagine, for instance, that Debian might ship a
WITH_BREAKING_CHANGES version in experimental for testing to find all
the exciting things that will break (of which I am aware of quite a
few).  (I will suggest that to them shortly.)

[0] This is true in both my personal and professional roles.
[1] Although I am unable to be more specific, let us just say that I am
endeavouring to do everything I can such that the date does not slip for
any reasons within my control.
-- 
brian m. carlson (they/them)
Toronto, Ontario, CA