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. -- Eli Schwartz
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
