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

Re: Feature proposal: Extended Life Cycle Support



On 07/07/2009 12:37 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:18:51 +0200
Kevin Kofler<kevin kofler chello at>  wrote:
Patrice Dumas's proposal failed because he wasn't provided with the
required infrastructure (and he was unable to come up with it
himself, which I can't blame him for).

That was the time before last. The last one was in Feb by Scott
Williams. I guess it just quietly faded out.


Scott Williams was also required to build up his own infrastructure, which frankly is too much overhead in order to be able to start up the rest of it.

Without a concrete group of people large enough to make this wory
saying that they are signing up to do that work, I don't have high
hopes for this succeeding in the long run.
We'd just need some minimal infrastructure effort, one person willing
to do the pushes (like you're doing for the supported releases) and
everything else would be "as is", if somebody wants something fixed,
they'll have to push the fix, if nobody cares, it won't be fixed. It
isn't supported after all. And no QA, if it breaks, you get to keep
the pieces. Again, it's unsupported, that means what it means. I
still think it's better than not getting any security fixes at all.

I think it is worse. It causes people to have an expectation that
something will get security updates, and when it doesn't happen and
they get compromised, they will not be very happy.


The same goes for current releases, don't you think?

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip


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