On Thu, Jul 22 2021, brian m. carlson wrote: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > On 2021-07-22 at 07:09:59, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> I'll clarify this along with other fixes in a re-roll, but I think our >> policy shouldn't have anything to do with upstream promises of support, >> but merely the trade-off of how easy it is for us to support old >> software & how likely it is that people use it in practice along with >> git. > > I don't think I agree. We should try to support major operating systems > well provided we can adequately be expected to test on them, and that > means that they should have publicly available security support. In > other words, a developer on the relevant operating system should be able > to test on that OS without paying ongoing money for the privilege of doing > so securely. Doesn't drawing that line in the sand for Linux distributions by implication leave out support for Windows, OSX and any other proprietary system? You need to pay for security and other updates for those from day one. > Once an operating system is no longer supported security-wise, we should > no longer support it, either, since we can't be expected to test or > develop on it securely. Nobody could responsibly run such an image on > a CI system or test with it on an Internet-connected computer, so we > should no longer consider it worthy of our support. Yes, I do think we disagree. I just think we should focus narrowly on whether it's a hassle for us to support older libcurl, whether some version of it is packaged with an old OS that's known to be in wide use or not is ultimately just a useful heuristic. >> So as an example we still say we support Perl 5.8, which is ridiculously >> ancient as far as any notion of upstream security support goes (and as >> an aside, does have real DoS issues exposed by e.g. the gitweb we ship). >> >> But while we could probably bump that to something more modern nowadays >> in practice we're not a mostly-Perl project, so I haven't found it to be >> worth it to bump it when working on the relevant code. > > I've actually argued in favor of bumping the version to 5.14 a long time > ago. I can send a patch for that. It has a bunch of nice new features > we could take advantage of. Sure, I'm not opposed. Just noting the in-tree nicer features for us v.s. more aggressive versioning policy for packagers and users (not that Perl 5.14 is aggressive). >> I'm only using RHEL 5 as a shorthand for a system that's usually the >> most ancient thing people want to build new gits with in practice. >> >> It's just not the case that you can't run RHEL 5 or even RHEL 4 "safely" >> even today. Upstream has just abandoned it, but that doesn't mean users >> in the wild have. There's also CentOS, not everyone cares about IBM >> corporate support policies. > > Yes, and CentOS has dropped support earlier than Red Hat has. > > Just because users want to run new versions of Git on systems that > should long ago have been abandoned[0] does not mean we should take the > burden of maintaining that code for them. Since they have the source > code, they can build and maintain Git on those old systems and apply > any necessary patches. If this becomes burdensome, then perhaps the > cost of maintaining the system will be an incentive to replace it with a > secure system. > > I am unconvinced that we should make it easier for people to run > insecure operating systems because they pose a hazard to the Internet > when connected to it. Just because it is behind some firewall doesn't > mean that it cannot be compromised, and once it is, it can then become > a source of spam and abuse. This is not an idle thought experiment; it > does practically happen with great frequency on the Internet today. An > unsupported system might be acceptable if it has no network connectivity > at all, but then it would not need a newer version of Git. Aren't you assuming that any network connectivity is equal to connectivity to the open internet? In any case, I think the notion that we should make git slightly more painful to use on these systems as a distant proxy variable to forcing OS upgrades is several levels away from where I think we should be drawing the line, which is closer to "is it painful in-tree?" and "is someone sending us patches to make it work?" etc.
