challenge: end of life for 6.2 is premature with buggy 6.3

[Doug Barton]

Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> It's quite possible what was proposed is an awful idea and if it is
>>> so be it. But it would appear as though it wasn't even considered.
>>
>> On the contrary. This, and lots of other ideas have been given very 
>> careful consideration and have been rejected due to lack of resources. 
>> There, feel better?
>>
>> Seriously folks, it's not as if we don't _want_ to be able to provide 
>> better, longer, faster, $whatever support. We're just trying to be 
>> realistic about what we can reasonably do with what we have available.
> 
> 
> Doug, would you possibly (without attacking me?) give some insight into 
> the issues here?  This is what I was asking: what prevents supporting 
> 6.2 ? 

Lack of time on the part of the people that do the support. (As has 
been explained lots of times already.) I realize that you'd rather 
have an answer that gives you something to argue about, but there 
isn't one.

> Where could I best apply some of my time to improve the situation?

Backport patches that you find interesting or relevant to 6.2, and 
post on the -stable list to let others know where to find them.


Doug (no, I'm not being flippant)

-- 

     This .signature sanitized for your protection