On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 4:46 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. It seems like there's not much more in contention from the current responses to this thread and v2. I've got a reroll ready with mostly wording/formatting changes based on your reply. I asked Johannes if he wanted to take a look on Discord[1], it seemed like he wasn't interested in doing a full review and doesn't want his name on the maintainer list: me: @dscho did you see https://lore.kernel.org/git/20240711232413.693444-1-emilyshaffer@xxxxxxxxxx/ ? do you want to be written down as windows maintainer? or does this policy differ enough from the way GfW works that it doesn't make sense for you? [...] dscho: That document makes sense for Git, including on the NonStop platform. dscho: For Git for Windows, the processes are substantially different, for example: not using a Git mailing list but instead GitHub discussions, issues and pull requests. Also, there is no seen, next, master nor maint. There's main. me: yeah, I guess I'm really asking - does this do enough for what you need to make your GfW fork work dscho: So: Thank you for notifying me and asking; I think it'll be fine without my name in it. What's next to move this patch forward? Should I be asking around for more people to review it? Or do you think it's close enough to ready that I should send v3 without waiting longer so you can take it? I took a look at DecisionMaking.txt but don't see that there's a clear answer; of the people participating in this thread my impression is that we have consensus, but there's also not that many people participating. - Emily 1: https://discord.com/channels/1042895022950994071/1156706741875130499/1262827182162575471 (requires Discord login and Git server membership :/)
