On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
>> Or, as you say, we could take the viewpoint that there are commercial
>> companies willing to take on the burden of supporting back releases, and
>> the development community ought not spend its limited resources on doing
>> that. I'm hesitant to push that idea very hard myself, because it would
>> look too much like I'm pushing the interests of my employer Red Hat
>> ... but certainly there's a reasonable case to be made there.
>
> Well, I think you know my opinion on this. Since there *are* commercial
> companies available, I think we should use them to reduce back-patching
> effort. I suggest that our policy should be: the community will patch two
> old releases, and beyond that if it's convenient, but no promises. In other
> words, when 8.1 comes out we'd be telling 7.3 users "We'll be patching this
> only where we can apply 7.4 patches. Otherwise, better get a support
> contract."
>
> Of course, a lot of this is up to individual initiative; if someone fixes a
> patch so it applies back to 7.2, there's no reason not to make it available.
> However, there's no reason *you* should make it a priority.
Agreed ... "if its convient/easy to back patch, cool ... but don't go out
of your way to do it" ...
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
