On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 01:36:32AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On 4/5/07, Erik Huelsmann <email@example.com> wrote:
> >Sure. But asking is free isn't it? I think 1.4.4 and 1.1.5 are the
> >important ones though. 1.4.4 needs no explanation and 1.1.x is still
> >widely in use on Debian derived sysytems (1.1.4 is in Sarge).
> Why do you think the Debian maintainers can't apply a patch?
> The point is that us producing anything other than 1.4.x release is
> silly as we don't recommend anyone using anything older - if a
> particular distro uses 1.1.x or whatever, then it's the distro
> maintainers responsibility to apply a patch - not us. -- justin
We also still support the 1.3 line, according to the 1.4 release notes.
I have no problem with us publishing a patch for 1., if it means
that we can avoid recreating a build environment. As Justin says, it
also probably helps avoid user confusion, and I suspect it's easier to
upload a patch+sig to CollabNet than all the zip/tar files and sigs.
However, even if we release a patch, we still need to:
- backport to the 1.x line in question and produce a patch
- apply the patch to the 1.x tarball
- get signatures for testing (signed against the patch)
- release note
Received on Thu Apr 5 10:54:14 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored