Re: [PATCH RFC v2 5/7] BreakingChanges: announce Rust becoming mandatory

> On 9/5/25 9:38 AM, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
> 
> >> Do we want to commit to promising support until gccrs is ready? What if
> >> gccrs ends up abandoned? Or takes an unexpectedly long time to reach a stage
> >> where it can build Git? It might make sense to give this LTS release a time
> >> limit instead, or in addidtion.
> > 
> > Yeah, I wasn't quite clear on that one, either. An alternative:
> > 
> >   - We will maintain the LTS release for 8 release cycles, which equates
> >     to roughly two years. It sounds like a lot, but recent security
> >     releases have stretched quite far into the past.
> > 
> >   - If there are still dependents after these two years we will hand
> >     over maintainership of the LTS branch to dependents. So they will be
> >     responsible for the backporting.
> > 
> > This really only is a suggestion though. I'm especially waiting for
> > Junio's feedback here to see whether he thinks that this is a reasonable
> > thing to do.
> 
> 
> This seems reasonable to me -- people who still need that LTS should be
> allowed to ensure it still works, and be expected to commit to the bit
> -- but with the emphasis that I would consider it absolutely mandatory
> that the git project accepts to host that branch, and it won't just
> exist in some other shadowy corner of the internet.