On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:32 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> I think I would have preferred Jeff's form of the vote, which would >> have allowed us to know the potential "operating forces" on 2.2.x. > > > We determined from that poll that there were >3 committers who > would fix bugs on 2.2, so that discussion was already done.
That was an informal poll, whereas an official one would probably have allowed us to count ourselves and maybe see if we can still maintain 2.2 effectively. Speeking for myself, if the cost of using (hence backporting to) 2.2.x exceeds significantly the one (technical/political/educational/whatever-al) of upgrading to 2.4.x, I'll choose the latter... ISTM that it's also a question of workforce, not that I doubt about committers wrt 2.2.x, I just wish I had a better idea with that poll (>3 is nice to know, but so is <?). > >> >> Sure people like having their release maintained, for free is even >> better, > > > They like having their new releases for free even more-so. What > inspired you to call out 'free' as in cash-in-lieu-of-beer? I meant free of time, work, or elbow/finger grease ;) > >> >> the investment is done either by the committers (for all >> living versions) or the users (upgrading). > > > No, it's not an either-or proposition. Committers, for those who > aren't in a position to upgrade (and only those who maintain an > interest, e.g. those >3 who responded to Jeff's survey). And the > users who are stuck in an update trajectory, for the time being, > or who have the freedom to upgrade (preferably, their entire host > or container OS). Well, some (maybe most, but not all!) won't move unless/until they face a missing security/bug fix in 2.2.x. Why would they if they don't need a new feature, and why will they in 1/2/3.. years?
