Re: [PATCH RFC v4 7/9] BreakingChanges: announce Rust becoming mandatory

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 22, 2025, 16:24 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqsegev4jp.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <aMfwGHL7dh8dk2cQ@pks.im>

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

Show 21 quoted lines

>> I am having a hard time imagining the practicality of this "hand
>> over but we still review" arrangement.  Some of the security fixes
>> are embargoed, and the reason why we are jetissoning the stale
>> codebase is presumably because nobody is willing to work on it other
>> than the "community support" folks.  I can imagine that we would
>> qualify them into the git-security cabal and let them use the forum
>> to coordinate among themselves, but then to what degree in the
>> "community support themselves" process is our involvement expected?
>> As long as we can make sure that they do not leak before the
>> official embargoed release, they do not need an official stamp of
>> approval from the project or by the Git maintainer---that is what it
>> means to "hand over maintainer ship", at least to me.
>> 
>> In other words, I like what I see in this paragraph, but I do not
>> think we can practically live with the part of the sentence after
>> the last ", but".
>
> I think the most important part here is that this community-supported
> LTS release should still live in the canonical repositories. We should
> avoid the situation where we hand over maintainership to such a degree
> that the end result (the tagged LTS release) lives somewhere else.

Why is it a bad thing? The official repository can have a README.md with a single entry "maintenance releases for Git 2.98 LTS (most notably with no Rust requirements) are found at this separate site".

> Otherwise we risk chaos and a plethora of different LTS releases, which
> would be harmful both for us and those that rely on the LTS releases.

No risk for that as long as we have a single "go there" pointer, right?

> And yes, that probably means that a trusted LTS maintainer should be on
> git-security@ so that they are aware of upcoming security releases.

Absolutely.

And there should be a community of those who are working on helping the backporting effort around that LTS maintainer that ensures there is no "chaos and a plethora of different LTS releases".

We might occasionally update what is listed in "git ls-remote --tags" from our repository by syncing with them only for convenience, but the important point is that the community supported LTS should have its own official site, which is different from the cutting/bleeding edge. Most importantly, a coordinated disclosure would say that the update to versions of

 - Git 3.0 to Git 3.4 are found $HERE, 
 - Git for Windows 3.0, 3.2, and 3.4 are found $THERE
 - Git 2.98 are found $COMMUNITY_LTS

to make sure that people know where to find their updates.

So, no, I do not think we should unnecessarily mix community LTS and the main project.