extras maintainence

[Tim Jackson]

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"

Tim