On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 08:54:49PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, > > >Or, as you say, we could take the viewpoint that there are commercial > >companies willing to take on the burden of supporting back releases, and > >the development community ought not spend its limited resources on doing > >that. I'm hesitant to push that idea very hard myself, because it would > >look too much like I'm pushing the interests of my employer Red Hat > >... but certainly there's a reasonable case to be made there. > > Well, I think you know my opinion on this. Since there *are* commercial > companies available, I think we should use them to reduce back-patching > effort. I suggest that our policy should be: the community will patch > two old releases, and beyond that if it's convenient, but no promises. > In other words, when 8.1 comes out we'd be telling 7.3 users "We'll be > patching this only where we can apply 7.4 patches. Otherwise, better > get a support contract."
I agree, although I think there should be some time guarantees as well. I like the ~3 year number that's been tossed around. > Of course, a lot of this is up to individual initiative; if someone > fixes a patch so it applies back to 7.2, there's no reason not to make > it available. However, there's no reason *you* should make it a priority. Yeah, I hope that commercial interests can work together on supporting things they want supported. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster