Emily Shaffer <nasamuffin@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[security > mailing list] in order to run tests against the fixes proposed there, too. > """ Looking good, I guess. THanks.
