SHA-256 Support

[dezren39]

Hi! A year ago it was mentioned that SHA-256 support was on the roadmap:

https://github.community/t/support-for-sha-256-hashes/157493

I was hoping to get an update on this and a timeline. Could we get a beta this year?

[lubo]

I'd appreciate a response from the staff as well. Also, GitLab's been working on this. See 🕵 Support for SHA256 repositories (&794).

[batazor]

so, GitLab did it - https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2023/08/28/sha256-support-in-gitaly/

P.S. Not all the way through, but almost

[lcdss]

3 years later and the biggest git platform still doesn't support it.

[eloj]

Doesn't seem to be working yet.

Pushing to github.com:eloj/testsha256repo.git
fatal: protocol error: unexpected capabilities^{}

I'm sure someone will get right on it, after they're done with all the copilot stuff maybe.

[shivangswain]

Guess we're still waiting on this, huh?

[shivangswain]

Guess we're still waiting on this, huh? 2: Electric Boogaloo

[lexi-the-cute]

I would also love SHA-256 support!

For those wanting to experiment with SHA-256 locally, you have to initialize a new repo cause at the time of writing, you cannot mix hash types within the same repo.

The command to initialize a new repo as SHA-256 is:

git init --object-format=sha256

[Nurmagoz]

https://about.gitlab.com/blog/gitlab-now-supports-sha256-repositories/

Gitlab announced an experimental way of trying it.

Any update from github side?

[wiktor-k]

Ack, and it works well in my experience. Codeberg supports SHA-256 repos, too so it leaves only GitHub lagging on this important feature...

[github-actions[bot]]

💬 Your Product Feedback Has Been Submitted 🎉

Thank you for taking the time to share your insights with us! Your feedback is invaluable as we build a better GitHub experience for all our users.

Here's what you can expect moving forward ⏩

• Your input will be carefully reviewed and cataloged by members of our product teams. 
  • Due to the high volume of submissions, we may not always be able to provide individual responses.
  • Rest assured, your feedback will help chart our course for product improvements.
• Other users may engage with your post, sharing their own perspectives or experiences. 
• GitHub staff may reach out for further clarification or insight. 
  • We may 'Answer' your discussion if there is a current solution, workaround, or roadmap/changelog post related to the feedback.

Where to look to see what's shipping 👀

• Read the Changelog for real-time updates on the latest GitHub features, enhancements, and calls for feedback.
• Explore our Product Roadmap, which details upcoming major releases and initiatives.

What you can do in the meantime 💻

• Upvote and comment on other user feedback Discussions that resonate with you.
• Add more information at any point! Useful details include: use cases, relevant labels, desired outcomes, and any accompanying screenshots.

As a member of the GitHub community, your participation is essential. While we can't promise that every suggestion will be implemented, we want to emphasize that your feedback is instrumental in guiding our decisions and priorities.

Thank you once again for your contribution to making GitHub even better! We're grateful for your ongoing support and collaboration in shaping the future of our platform. ⭐

[eloj]

Git 3.0 aims to change the default hash to SHA-256:

* Flipping the default hash function to SHA-256 at Git 3.0 boundary is planned.

https://github.com/git/git/blob/721c9e5ce7c6fa4e1a33490f5e5a81eeee814021/Documentation/RelNotes/2.51.0.adoc?plain=1#L111

Enable SHA-256 by default in breaking changes mode

Our document on breaking changes indicates that we intend to default to
SHA-256 in Git 3.0.  Since most people choose the default option, this
is an important security upgrade to our defaults.

git/git@c79bb70

[MonterraByte]

Can't wait for Git 3.0 to release before GitHub adds support for SHA-256 repos, causing everyone to change their Git config back to SHA-1 so they can push to GitHub, and then forgetting to switch back to SHA-256 once GitHub finally gets around to it...

[cinit]

Hello year 2026. Is there any update?

[halamix2]

Nope, pushing a sha256 repo doesn't work, import from other git sha256 repo (e.g. from codeberg) repo ends with the following email:

Hi halamix2!

The import to https://github.com/halamix2/test2 failed. The following error occurred: A critical error occurred in the Delete broken refs step of the git migration..


If you have any questions, please contact us at https://github.com/contact.

--
Your friends at GitHub

[halamix2]

See also https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/154056

[vlakoff]

I’m adding my voice here because this issue has now become a real ecosystem‑level blocker.
For reference, the official Git documentation on the transition is here: https://git-scm.com/docs/hash-function-transition

Git has supported SHA‑256 since version 2.29 (released in October 2020).
That’s more than five years of official support in the Git tool itself.

According to the Git project’s own roadmap, SHA‑256 is planned to become the default hash algorithm in Git 3.0, and the Git 2.51 release notes explicitly confirm this. In other words, the Git maintainers consider SHA‑256 mature enough that it will soon be the standard for all new repositories.

Meanwhile, some of GitHub’s competitors have already moved:

• GitLab announced SHA‑256 repository support in 2023 and later added UI‑level project creation support in 2024 (both still experimental).
• Codeberg supports SHA‑256 repositories through Forgejo, and users report it works reliably since Forgejo 7.0 (2024).

At this point, GitHub is by far the primary blocker preventing SHA‑256 adoption across the Git ecosystem.
Every other major component—Git itself, hosting alternatives, local tooling—already supports or is ready for SHA‑256. GitHub’s lack of support forces users to stay on SHA‑1, even though the Git project has been preparing the transition for years.

It would be extremely helpful to have any update from GitHub staff: even a rough timeline, or confirmation that SHA‑256 support is actively being worked on. The community has been waiting since 2020, and the rest of the ecosystem is moving forward without GitHub.

[vlakoff]

• Also worth noting, the upcoming SmartGit 26.1 has added support for Git 3.0.

  From changelog-26.1.txt:

  # SmartGit 26.1.011 (2026-03-02)
  (...)
  - Git:
    - Git 3.0 compatibility: SHA-256 support
    - Git 3.0 compatibility: reftable support
    - Repository validation: optimized internal checks
  

• Gitea is another forge that has added support for SHA-256.

  Their PR #23894 may be of interest for insight into the technical implementation.

  (There is the exception of the GoGit tool: go-git/go-git#706 — edit: initial SHA‑256 support has begun landing, available in the v6.0.0‑alpha.1 prerelease.)

• Some forges that still do not support SHA‑256 include:

  • Bitbucket (BCLOUD-23729), which is another major platform lagging behind GitHub in this area
  • JGit (eclipse-jgit/jgit#73), used for instance by Gerrit

[kamikaze]

what a shame

[3BK]

Any update?

[3BK]

I suggest we wave a fond farewell to ye old mysql+vitess backend and spin up a modern tech stack.

• maybe PostgreSQL 18 for relational business data and strongly consistent metadata
• maybe TiKV with RocksDB for the distributed SHA-256 object index, reference state and very high-volume key-value workloads
• maybe S3-compatible object storage for Git objects, packfiles, LFS objects, Actions artifacts and packages
• Rust for Git protocol, object processing, hashing, packfile construction, storage gateways and control-plane services
• maybe Kafka for the durable event backbone
• maybe ScyllaDB for selected extremely high-volume, eventually consistent workloads
• maybe OpenSearch for code, issue and repository search
• maybe Valkey as a disposable cache

Once the new backend tech stack has been comissioned, move everything over and keep the legacy github front end as a translation layer for the new techstack.

[3BK]

• Architecture
  • Since when is two million lines of code considered big?
• Infrastructure
• What we are doing

[nikitabobko]

AFAIK GitHub doesn't allow natively creating sha256 repos yet, but if you really want to have one, you can fork someone else's existing sha256 repo (don't ask me how they created one) and then leave-fork-network/rename

Here is a sha256 repo: https://github.com/bk2204/talk-rust-in-git
Here is my fork: https://github.com/nikitabobko/talk-rust-in-git

[AverageHelper]

ohey, carlson did say they had "an update to provide" on GitHub's sha256 support, I guess this is it!

Via https://github.com/bk2204/talk-rust-in-git/blob/1ab09c89ff09cf55dcea97a2626530ddedfe91a60c8490d469dd9500c04be304/presentation.adoc#one-more-thing:

One More Thing

• Slides are available at https://github.com/bk2204/talk-rust-in-git
• This is a SHA-256 repository
• SHA-256 now in private preview
• SHA-256 repository creation not yet publicly available, but it's coming

That's probably about as good of an update on this as we're gonna get soon, but at least it is Being Worked On™ 🎉