Calvin Wan <calvinwan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> ... >> Debian stable is the version that most projects who have defined >> lifespans track, so it's also what we should track. According to my >> recommended approach, that would be 1.63. > > ... I also don't think reinventing the wheel with > our own implementation makes sense in this case, I do agree that we would want to avoid that. > and even if Debian were > to upgrade stable to a higher version today, we would still need to > support oldstable for another year. I doubt that part, though. As long as the rust binding stays an optional code, as long as we are supported by the "current" system, we would still have enough audience to matter. What's the primary objective of this effort, by the way? Is it "we need to access the guts of Git implementation from Rust"? Or does it merely serve as an example application to have Rust bindings, a good goal to have to give us an incentive to clean up the subsystem interactions in our code? If it is the former, we cannot reasonably achieve that goal until some form of standardized foreign function interface becomes available to wide audience. If it is the latter, on the other hand, it does not have to be Rust---if the version of Rust that is distirbuted to the mainstream users is not yet ready to be used in such a way, we could pick another goal (like, "Can we clean-up the interface cgit uses to call into us, so that the parts used by them look more like a proper library?"). Thanks.
