On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:00:58AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > > > > We don't fix these kinds of bugs in the 1.6 series anymore. > > The 1.6 series receives only security or data corruption fixes. > > Do you happen to know how the decision is made to update the > subversion rpm included in RHEL6.x? Projects that jump their version > numbers all the time and let old versions remain broken tend to > conflict badly with 'enterprise ' distributions that want stable APIs. > There have been rare exceptions to bumping application versions > within an RHEL major rev lifespan but mostly in desktop type apps. > The odds are very likely that any unfixed bugs in 1.6 are going to > continue to affect a lot of people on RHEL/CentOS for another decade.
Why should we spend our time maintaining old code for RedHat's customers? In this case, the burden to backport these fixes is on RedHat/CentOS, not us. They're the ones shipping outdated code to their customers (for a good reason, since their customers value stability over new features and non-critical bugfixes). We don't ship the outdated code.
