It doesn't look like you can actually get that release yet.
Highlights from Git 2.34
21–30 of 100 posts
Re: Highlights from Git 2.34
#22They did it again. GitHub “stealing” the Git release announcement, contributing to the Git/GitHub confusion. Comments from the last time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28207168 For those who don’t know: GitHub is owned by Microsoft, a historical (and current) adversary of all things not Microsoft, particularly Linux¹. Git, the tool, is not made by GitHub; GitHub is a web service which is using Git. Git, the to…
Has git published their own release announcement like this for people to read?
It's in the repo: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/git/git/master/Documentati...
[edit: in fact it's linked from GitHub's blog post, at the bottom, and it's included in the announcement email: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq8rxpgwki.fsf@gitster.g/]
Re: Highlights from Git 2.34
#23They did it again. GitHub “stealing” the Git release announcement, contributing to the Git/GitHub confusion. Comments from the last time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28207168 For those who don’t know: GitHub is owned by Microsoft, a historical (and current) adversary of all things not Microsoft, particularly Linux¹. Git, the tool, is not made by GitHub; GitHub is a web service which is using Git. Git, the to…
Actually my impression is that Microsoft is probably the largest corporate sponsor currently for git devs. They’re primarily focused on large mono repo support and ecosystem improvements that fit into their GitHub strategy. Overall, I’d characterize their Git involvement as positive.
Re: Highlights from Git 2.34
#24Related: it's been a year since Pijul (https://pijul.org) began working towards 1.0 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25032956). Seems to be coming along nicely, they're in alpha now and it's showing.
Re: Highlights from Git 2.34
#25It's really neat that ssh keys can be used for signing commits, but I'm not a big fan of this. When auditing a source repository you want to see how commits are signed over time. In other words you have a key X which is valid at time Y. As Y changes, key X will change as well. To audit a repo, you need to know the history of what key X was valid at time Y. With GPG you can set up a hierarchy of commit signing keys wh…
All of this signing is only useful if someone is actually checking or enforcing those signatures, otherwise it's just LARPing.
Being able to sign commits with your SSH keys makes signing actually useful, because it enables a new workflow that developers will use:
- You give every dev on your team a Yubikey
- They generate an ed25519-sk key that only resides on the Yubikey, no software required as it works out of the box with both openssh and GitHub
- They upload the public ID of the key to GitHub, same as before
- You enforce commit signature verification for your GitHub org. You're done, no need to install any software, everything Just Works.
You now have:
- No private keys on developers machines, rendering all types of supply chain attacks like NPM stealing your .ssh files ineffective
- Enforced 2FA for everyone without any hassle
- Every commit signed by developers, enforced and with no developer overhead. Checks a lot of boxes for those SOCs and ISOs.
Re: Highlights from Git 2.34
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh look, the obligatory "Micro$oft is evil" rhetoric based on decades old grievances and very little new evidence. So useful. It's perfectly reasonable for a company, that uses the tool in its name, to have a blog post going over new features. I'm never amazed the distances people will go to distort a boring blog post into some issue or another based on splitting hairs.
> very little new evidence Off topic, but there was that dotnetfederation overreach shenanigans
Or all the telemetry enabled in Windows and then making local accounts more difficult, although once you sign in to a Microsoft account to download some broken app from their app store then they start uploading all your app launches and activity anyhow.
Re: Highlights from Git 2.34
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO GitHub posting these is fine since they're headlined "Highlights from Git 2.3x", but the last discussion incorrectly just said "Git 2.33", which is likely where the confusion came from. Hopefully this post will keep the distinction front-and-center.
If your name is GitHub and you announce a new release of Git, which your product GitHub uses extentively, and you do not explicitly and clearly mention that you do not have any role in making Git itself, then you are lying by omission; deliberately misinforming people who will naturally assume, given no information to the contrary, that GitHub are the makers of Git. I think that most people are already under the misa…
> that you do not have any role in making Git itself
GitHub employs at least three full time git contributors, including the author of this blog post.
(Disclaimer: I am a GitHub employee who works on git-adjacent things)
Re: Highlights from Git 2.34
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
IMO GitHub posting these is fine since they're headlined "Highlights from Git 2.3x", but the last discussion incorrectly just said "Git 2.33", which is likely where the confusion came from. Hopefully this post will keep the distinction front-and-center.
If your name is GitHub and you announce a new release of Git, which your product GitHub uses extentively, and you do not explicitly and clearly mention that you do not have any role in making Git itself, then you are lying by omission; deliberately misinforming people who will naturally assume, given no information to the contrary, that GitHub are the makers of Git. I think that most people are already under the misa…
"you do not explicitly and clearly mention that you do not have any role in making Git itself, then you are lying by omission;"
Um - I thought Microsoft does have a big role - doesn't Johannes do the Git for Windows stuff and work at Microsoft, and Jeff work for github etc etc.
Re: Highlights from Git 2.34
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh look, the obligatory "Micro$oft is evil" rhetoric based on decades old grievances and very little new evidence. So useful. It's perfectly reasonable for a company, that uses the tool in its name, to have a blog post going over new features. I'm never amazed the distances people will go to distort a boring blog post into some issue or another based on splitting hairs.
> very little new evidence Off topic, but there was that dotnetfederation overreach shenanigans
And repeatedly trying to trick or force us to use Edge and probably a few others.
Re: Highlights from Git 2.34
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> very little new evidence Off topic, but there was that dotnetfederation overreach shenanigans
And repeatedly trying to trick or force us to use Edge and probably a few others.
Are these decisions we don't agree with? Sure. Evil? No. At least not 1999 Microsoft evil. I can find just as many bad decisions from every other major tech company.
For the record, I actually did give Edge Chromium a spin and I was a bit impressed. The Deals feature creeps me out, but I can browse the reddit homepage without an ad blocker and it's actually a smooth experience.