A maintainer for that specific platform was more into the line of thinking that Git should bend over backwards to support them because "loss of support could have societal impact [...] Leaving debit or credit card authorizers without a supported git would be, let's say, "bad"."
To me it looks like big corps enjoying the idea of having free service so they can avoid maintaining their own stuff, and trying the "too big to fail" fiddle on open source maintainers, with little effect.
It's additionally ridiculous because git is a code management tool. Maybe they are using it for something much more wild than that (why?) but I assume this is mostly just a complaint that they can't do `git pull` from their wonky architecture that they are building on. They could literally have a network mount and externally manage the git if they still need it.
It's not like older versions of git won't work perfectly fine. Git has great backwards compatibility. And if there is a break, seems like a good opportunity for them to fork and fix the break.
And lets be perfectly clear. These are very often systems built on top of a mountain of open source software. These companies will even have custom patched tools like gcc that they aren't willing to upstream because some manager decided they couldn't just give away the code they paid an engineer to write. I may feel bad for the situation it puts the engineers in, I feel absolutely no remorse for the companies because their greed put them in these situations in the first place.
> Leaving debit or credit card authorizers without a supported git would be, let's say, "bad".
Oh no, if only these massive companies that print money could do something as unthinkable as pay for a support contract!