From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (pb-smtp21.pobox.com [173.228.157.53]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00B7413A245 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 23:46:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721087208; cv=none; b=e3oBk8WC4M89iHhXtTeZqF40+69jc00GSIqfMZ4Uc1LXFL7EGc+IwIOv/temaIzi0cqBMLpqsXoHknRy+HtilXPaEgeW/aCfM6fvItSjy75NChnalUbX93T6cSUoJmgLOFotenwsDxnJ66JDHFR1Q02TzPnLv9TrOKk5NJhTWDg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721087208; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2D1G6vMGhy4MZTcOF3OPGJHwBJ+aQV/Yaot66immqW4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Su+/hxEus2FrJC1D51SFv6KIwJYHWXZh7c5etxEV9AsB8kmnzHT8zjctgPkwwdXy+yniggYakuYNtiXtN+FAtRQOMrz0Uqev0d/RojpGWeKTm/wnXmkuTUlRmdeSFd2sdU8nWvc8YY8tS0ymPQiPP8bZMWBF9Yn18q9ZzSehrrA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=po7A7Zjz; arc=none smtp.client-ip=173.228.157.53 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="po7A7Zjz" Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C41A25C1C; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 19:46:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=2D1G6vMGhy4MZTcOF3OPGJHwBJ+aQV/Yaot66i mmqW4=; b=po7A7ZjzDKrHnjClyYYxaKAPM+HzdCWp6h/3QVK3KavnQjex4kh05K CFdB424EhXGJKJd4W01OGNvGqG/GLTcQlnJb9a4rhU02IJz3wdF7PLMMuuU6Shk9 jTE99A3k+u74vvq6ppUo3xHnVkgw+/pzqBDUcV7nk0jwbSWE9PZ4w= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44E3325C1B; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 19:46:46 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.125.139.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1FFD925C18; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 19:46:42 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Emily Shaffer Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Randall S. Becker" , Taylor Blau , Johannes Schindelin , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation: add platform support policy In-Reply-To: (Emily Shaffer's message of "Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:20:51 -0700") References: <20240711232413.693444-1-emilyshaffer@google.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:46:40 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7C9EF9B2-4304-11EF-B398-DFF1FEA446E2-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Emily Shaffer writes: > If I fudge with the rewrite a little, I get: > > """ > Git has a history of providing broad "support" for exotic platforms > and older > platforms, without an explicit commitment. Stakeholders of these platforms may > want a more predictable support commitment. This is only possible when platform > stakeholders supply Git developers with adequate tooling, so we can > test for > compatibility or develop workarounds for platform-specific quirks on > our own. > Various levels of tooling will allow us to make more solid commitments around > Git's compatibility with your platform. > """ This reads well. > """ > Note that this document is about maintaining existing support for a platform > that has generally worked in the past; for adding support to a > platform which > doesn't generally work with Git, the stakeholders for that platform are expected > to do the bulk of that work themselves. We will consider such patches > if they > don't make life harder for other supported platforms, and you may well find a > contributor interested in working on that support, but the Git > community as a > whole doesn't feel an obligation to perform such work. > """ The part before "We will consider" reads very well. The part after that, I haven't formed a firm opinion on (yet). > """ > * You should run nightly tests against the `next` branch and publish breakage > reports to the mailing list immediately when they happen. > > ** You may want to ask to join the > mailto:git-security@googlegroups.com[security > mailing list] in order to run tests against the fixes proposed there, too. > """ Looking good, I guess. THanks.