On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 11:42:12PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > This is a resurrection of the thread from April:
> > https://public-inbox.org/git/20170404025438.bgxz5sfmrawqs...@sigill.intra.peff.net/
> As before, I would like to point out that people running with older cURL
> are most likely not at liberty to change the system libraries.
> I know that I didn't when I was working on a very expensive microscope
> whose only certified control computer ran a very old version of CentOS,
> and I really needed to install Git on it.
> In such a case, it is often preferable to be able to build against an old
> cURL -- even if some of the fancier features might be broken, and even if
> some minor compile errors need to be fixed.
> I know I was happy to compile Git against an ancient cURL back then.
> Just so you understand where I come from when I would like to caution
> against dropping support for older cURL unless it *really* adds an
> *enormous* amount of maintenance burden.
> I mean, if we even go out of our way to support the completely outdated
> and obsolete .git/branches/ for what is likely a single user, it may not
> be the worst to keep those couple of #ifdef guards to keep at least
> nominal support for older cURLs?
You've totally ignored the argument I made back then, and which I
reiterated in this thread. So I'll say it one more time: the more
compelling reason is not the #ifdefs, but the fact that the older
versions are totally untested. In fact, they do not even compile, and
yet I have not seen any patches to fix that.
So IMHO this is about being honest with users about which versions we