Re: [PATCH v5 7/9] BreakingChanges: announce Rust becoming mandatory
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Sep 22, 2025, 22:56 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqplbiqeol.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <aNHKdFkiGLPcLEjP@fruit.crustytoothpaste.net>
"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
Show 11 quoted lines
>> As I already said a few times (e.g. <xmqq8qipzhg3.fsf@gitster.g>), I >> feel that the timeline hinted by any of these documents that were >> proposed is way too aggressive for affected people to practically >> prepare for. > > I don't think it's substantially more aggressive than the > interoperability code. Both are aggressive timelines, but getting LLVM > ported to some of the affected targets isn't out of the question > (especially since older versions of it supported some of those targets) > and once that's done, I'm pretty sure Rust upstream would be on board > with supporting those systems.
Our timeline being agressive to cause more intense work on our people is one thing. It does not make much sense to me to compare it with the timeline being aggressive to others who do not control our timeline.
Putting it in another way, I'd call it hopelessly optimistic to expect that those currently without Rust can somehow come up with a plan to help their vendors (or they may be vendors themselves, then convince their management) prepare their platforms to support Rust within 18 months. And giving them ultimatum based on the optimism was never my favorite part of this whole thing.
Show 10 quoted lines
>> [Footnote] >> >> * By the way, I _think_ I never saw that policy document until >> Ezekiel started his topic and sent it out as one of the component >> patches; how did it get there from brian to Ezekiel's topic? > > I had it in a branch of mine that I was going to submit at some point > and I mentioned it to Ezekiel, who modified it and incorporated it. The > original branch should be `rust` on my remote for those who are > interested.
I figured that something like that happened. I was mostly interested in how firm those original authors supported the version with Ezekiel's changes, as outsides would not be able to telll how extensive the change were.
Thanks.