On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > > The distributions have been doing this nigh on two decades - the stability of > a given software baseline which will not suddenly break at 3am some arbitrary > Sunday in the middle of the holidays is the very product they’re selling. > This works because they ship a baseline, plus carefully curated fixes as > required by their communities, trading off the needs of their communities and > stability.
So with respect to *our* communities... On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Graham Leggett <minf...@sharp.fm> wrote: > On 17 Apr 2018, at 6:08 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > >> No enhancement since 2011-12-19 has been presented for the collective >> community's scrutiny. > > Again, I’m not following. > > The architecture of v2.4 has been very stable, the need for breaking changes > has been largely non existent, and the focus since 2011 has been to get > changes backported to v2.4 instead. > > To distill this down to raw numbers, there have been 1546 discrete backports > (my simple grep of CHANGES) since 2011 - which has provided an enormous > amount of enhancement for the collective community’s scrutiny. And the corresponding number of regressions and behavior changes. None of these have enjoyed an "RC" or "beta", whatever one calls it, to validate before adoption - other than our claim of "best httpd yet". It has been an entirely new kitchen sink on every subversion release. > You seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill, I just don’t see the > problem you’re trying to solve. You are welcome to attribute this concern any way you like, and be satisfied with whatever yardstick you wish to measure it by. If you interpret our users as desiring enhancement and not stability, then those are the interests you should advocate. I'll leave this thread alone for another week again to give them the opportunity to chime in.
