[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: extras maintainence

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

The reasons are simple: Maintainers' resources are limited, so
maintainers restrict themselves to actively working the release they are
actively using and try to avoid to touch anything that is not "reported
to be broken" (The old: "don't try to fix what ain't broken")

In the end you see a policy of "If it builds it goes to FC(n+1)", "If it
seems to work it goes to FC(n)", "If a change is harmless it goes to
FC(n-1), if it seems scary, it doesn't".

Frankly speaking, I don't see what's wrong with this.

Thanks for that succinct description Ralph: I think you've probably captured there the realistic (not theoretical) way many volunteers will work, consciously or not.

To add to that I would also say that most maintainers are also probably able to make a call that "these changes are security related, but I don't have resources to test on FC(n-x), therefore I will drop that branch or offer it to someone who wants to maintain it as a legacy branch"


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]