On 5/24/11 4:47 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 05/24, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> I consider 3.2 unmaintained and people should be running 3.3.X. I
>> consider a valid cross-over period to maintain both releases but
>> 3.2.x has long since dropped off my radar.
>
> 3.3.x has only been available since 2010-01-27.
>
> Dropping support for mission critical software after only providing 4
> months to do a major upgrade is bullshit.
4 months and one year... 16 months... That's almost the entire release
cycle for a consumer distro like Mandriva (not the enterprise server
version, which is 5 years, with yearly re-spins to keep the kernel and other
rapidly developing packages in sync with reality).
Clamav had to lay down the law and actively disable old versions. With
security software you need to keep reasonably current.
>
> Dropping support without even mentioning it on the website is similarly
> poor.
>
Agreed. I'd say you should drop 3.2 when you release 3.4.0. In the mean
time, anyone who wants to release a 3.2.6 tarball should be encouraged to
close out the bugs and cut an RC....
> Compare Ubuntu's 5 years of support for LTS releases on servers.
But that has bit people in the past. The 3-year-old version of clamav that
was crashing due to the new signature types was a particularly glaring
example...
>
> On 05/24, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> I think that's a bit harsh as we don't claim to maintain ANY version
>> and haven't had a release in very nearly 3 years in the 3.2 branch.
>
> It should be sufficiently implied that we support the software we provide.
> And the nearly 3 years since the last 3.2 release is not the relevant
> time period. The 4 months since it was released is.
--
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281
