On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>> > We don't fix these kinds of bugs in the 1.6 series anymore.
>> > The 1.6 series receives only security or data corruption fixes.
>> Do you happen to know how the decision is made to update the
>> subversion rpm included in RHEL6.x? Projects that jump their version
>> numbers all the time and let old versions remain broken tend to
>> conflict badly with 'enterprise ' distributions that want stable APIs.
>> There have been rare exceptions to bumping application versions
>> within an RHEL major rev lifespan but mostly in desktop type apps.
>> The odds are very likely that any unfixed bugs in 1.6 are going to
>> continue to affect a lot of people on RHEL/CentOS for another decade.
> Why should we spend our time maintaining old code for RedHat's customers?
I don't know what you have against RedHat's customers, but a much
larger base of CentOS and Scientific Linux users will get exactly the
same versions delivered in their update stream in the free rebuilds.
> In this case, the burden to backport these fixes is on RedHat/CentOS, not us.
> They're the ones shipping outdated code to their customers (for a good reason,
> since their customers value stability over new features and non-critical
> bugfixes). We don't ship the outdated code.
It is more a question of whether you want users to get fixes for the
bugs you did ship. If you are happy with a lot of users continuing
to have problems for the next decade, then fine. Just don't be
surprised when the issues keep getting reported.
Received on 2012-05-31 18:41:58 CEST