[Proposal] Drop git 1.x support, or fix the IsEmpty bug #8886

New Issue

GiteaMirror · 2025-11-02T08:22:04-06:00

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 08:22:04 -06:00

Originally created by @wxiaoguang on GitHub (Apr 29, 2022).

There is an obvious bug in Gitea that IsEmpty check always fails in git 1.x (git 1.x reports an error for that command), it makes many users only see empty repositories after they have pushed content in.

https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/19086
(and more)

The only reason to support git 1.x IIRC is for CentOS 7.x users.

However, CentOS 7.x is quite old, and the users could always have other solutions: upgrade git (ius/wandisco/endpoint), or use docker to run Gitea.

Since Gitea is reaching 1.17, it's time to make the decision.

👍 Drop git 1.x support
🎉 [or] Fix the IsEmpty bug

I prefer to drop git 1.x support.

Originally created by @wxiaoguang on GitHub (Apr 29, 2022). There is an obvious bug in Gitea that `IsEmpty` check always fails in git 1.x (git 1.x reports an error for that command), it makes many users only see empty repositories after they have pushed content in. * https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/19086 (and more) The only reason to support git 1.x IIRC is for CentOS 7.x users. However, CentOS 7.x is quite old, and the users could always have other solutions: upgrade git (ius/wandisco/endpoint), or use docker to run Gitea. Since Gitea is reaching 1.17, it's time to make the decision. * 👍 Drop git 1.x support * 🎉 [or] Fix the `IsEmpty` bug I prefer to drop git 1.x support.

GiteaMirror added the issue/confirmed type/proposal labels 2025-11-02 08:22:04 -06:00

GiteaMirror closed this issue

2025-11-02 08:22:04 -06:00

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 08:22:05 -06:00

@lafriks commented on GitHub (Apr 29, 2022):

I would also vote for dropping git 1.x support

@lafriks commented on GitHub (Apr 29, 2022): I would also vote for dropping git 1.x support

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 08:22:05 -06:00

@silverwind commented on GitHub (Apr 29, 2022):

We should probably define a minimum git version visibly in the docs and maybe emit a startup warning if it's too old. A good starter might be git 2.17 which is the latest upstream-supported version.

@silverwind commented on GitHub (Apr 29, 2022): We should probably define a minimum git version visibly in the docs and maybe emit a startup warning if it's too old. A good starter might be git 2.17 which is the latest upstream-supported version.

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 08:22:05 -06:00

@wxiaoguang commented on GitHub (May 1, 2022):

@go-gitea/maintainers

It seems that this proposal gets votes for drop git 1.x support.

Any objection? If no objection, then we can move on.

@wxiaoguang commented on GitHub (May 1, 2022): @go-gitea/maintainers It seems that this proposal gets votes for `drop git 1.x support`. Any objection? If no objection, then we can move on.

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 08:22:06 -06:00

@lunny commented on GitHub (May 1, 2022):

@go-gitea/maintainers

It seems that this proposal gets votes for drop git 1.x support.

Any objection? If no objection, then we can move on.

I update the issue content to add two emoji to make vote easier. :)

@lunny commented on GitHub (May 1, 2022): > @go-gitea/maintainers > > It seems that this proposal gets votes for `drop git 1.x support`. > > Any objection? If no objection, then we can move on. I update the issue content to add two emoji to make vote easier. :)

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 08:22:06 -06:00

@wxiaoguang commented on GitHub (May 2, 2022):

Since there is no objection (yet), so the PR comes, a very simple PR:

#19577

silverwind:

We should probably define a minimum git version visibly in the docs and maybe emit a startup warning if it's too old. A good starter might be git 2.17 which is the latest upstream-supported version.

Do you have some references about this information? I can not find the earliest supported git version.

@wxiaoguang commented on GitHub (May 2, 2022): Since there is no objection (yet), so the PR comes, a very simple PR: * #19577 ---- silverwind: > We should probably define a minimum git version visibly in the docs and maybe emit a startup warning if it's too old. A good starter might be git 2.17 which is the latest upstream-supported version. Do you have some references about this information? I can not find the earliest supported git version.

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 08:22:06 -06:00

@silverwind commented on GitHub (May 2, 2022):

Do you have some references about this information? I can not find the earliest supported git version.

I was going off Wikipedia, not sure how accurate that info is, but the release dates seem to confirm it.

@silverwind commented on GitHub (May 2, 2022): > Do you have some references about this information? I can not find the earliest supported git version. I was going off [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git#Releases), not sure how accurate that info is, but the release dates seem to confirm it.

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 08:22:06 -06:00

@wxiaoguang commented on GitHub (May 2, 2022):

Interesting .... I prefer maybe we do not need to hard-code these minor versions into code, without these detailed version, it reduces the maintenance workload, and gitea still works correctly. And there are a lot of git version check inside gitea, maybe they should be upgraded together in future.

@wxiaoguang commented on GitHub (May 2, 2022): Interesting .... I prefer maybe we do not need to hard-code these minor versions into code, without these detailed version, it reduces the maintenance workload, and gitea still works correctly. And there are a lot of git version check inside gitea, maybe they should be upgraded together in future.

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 08:22:06 -06:00

@eeyrjmr commented on GitHub (May 2, 2022):

One consideration for the minimum is any associated security issues
https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-15815/product_id-33590/Git-scm-GIT.html

@eeyrjmr commented on GitHub (May 2, 2022): One consideration for the minimum is any associated security issues https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-15815/product_id-33590/Git-scm-GIT.html

GiteaMirror commented

2025-11-02 08:22:07 -06:00

@wxiaoguang commented on GitHub (May 2, 2022):

One consideration for the minimum is any associated security issues https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-15815/product_id-33590/Git-scm-GIT.html

Thank you for the suggestion. However, the 3rdparty security is not related to Gitea directly. For example, there are other softwares like Database, Cache, SSH even Linux Kernel may have security problem, but Gitea can not (and should not) cover all of them.

@wxiaoguang commented on GitHub (May 2, 2022): > One consideration for the minimum is any associated security issues https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-15815/product_id-33590/Git-scm-GIT.html Thank you for the suggestion. However, the 3rdparty security is not related to Gitea directly. For example, there are other softwares like Database, Cache, SSH even Linux Kernel may have security problem, but Gitea can not (and should not) cover all of them.

Sign in to join this conversation.

Branches Tags

1 Participants

Notifications

Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: github-starred/gitea#8886