Feature proposal: Extended Life Cycle Support

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

On 07/07/2009 12:37 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:18:51 +0200
> Kevin Kofler<kevin.kofler at chello.at>  wrote:
>> Patrice Dumas's proposal failed because he wasn't provided with the
>> required infrastructure (and he was unable to come up with it
>> himself, which I can't blame him for).
>
> That was the time before last. The last one was in Feb by Scott
> Williams. I guess it just quietly faded out.
>

Scott Williams was also required to build up his own infrastructure, 
which frankly is too much overhead in order to be able to start up the 
rest of it.

>>> Without a concrete group of people large enough to make this wory
>>> saying that they are signing up to do that work, I don't have high
>>> hopes for this succeeding in the long run.
>> We'd just need some minimal infrastructure effort, one person willing
>> to do the pushes (like you're doing for the supported releases) and
>> everything else would be "as is", if somebody wants something fixed,
>> they'll have to push the fix, if nobody cares, it won't be fixed. It
>> isn't supported after all. And no QA, if it breaks, you get to keep
>> the pieces. Again, it's unsupported, that means what it means. I
>> still think it's better than not getting any security fixes at all.
>
> I think it is worse. It causes people to have an expectation that
> something will get security updates, and when it doesn't happen and
> they get compromised, they will not be very happy.
>

The same goes for current releases, don't you think?

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip