RE: [PATCH v2] Documentation: add platform support policy
On Tuesday, July 16, 2024 1:59 PM, Emily Shaffer wrote:
Show 59 quoted lines
>On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 4:46 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Emily Shaffer <nasamuffin@google.com> 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.
>
>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@google.com/
>? 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.
Putting it the way below, we could use my team's GitHub Issues list for our fork (we haven't used the fork since 3.0 happened and we finally got to the same code base). The repo is still there, if this team wants it, but I think the general mailing list for NonStop issues is probably better. Most (by a long way) of our issues have ultimately been of general interest. My community is rather shy (not used to mailing lists) and also mostly blocking access to GitHub.com, so... mailing list for discussions.
Show 21 quoted lines
>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 :/)
rsbecker@nexbridge.com <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>