On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > On 17 Apr 2018, at 4:41 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > >> We observe the "code freeze" effect (defined by three different >> distributors) coupled with distributors deep distrust of our releases, >> so by continuously polluting our version major.minor release with more >> and more cruft, those users are denied not only the new cruft, but all >> the bug fixes to the old cruft as well... there's really no other >> explanation for the users of one of our most common distributions to >> be locked out of several subversions worth of bugfix corrections. > > I’m lost - what problem are you trying to solve?
There is a second problem implied above, which I overlooked, sorry. No enhancement since 2011-12-19 has been subjected to any community scrutiny. This was the date 2.3.16-beta for 2.4 was announced. Yes, patches go through test frameworks and peer review. But every enhancement has been foisted on the user community without any pre-adoption scrutiny. This is made plain by the frequent number of rejected release candidates, and by the equally frequent number of post-release regression reports. No enhancement I'm aware of has been rejected by the dev@ community; eventually objections will be withdrawn, with enough committers will rubber stamp whatever is in STATUS. The project has been responsive to these regressions by releasing fixes, which themselves are overloaded with new features and behavior changes.
