Hello Tim, Willy, On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 2:48 PM Tim Düsterhus <[email protected]> wrote: > > Unless you feel that it's starting to cause too much work on your side, > > from my developer's perspective at least it's still manageable as it is > > right now, with a positive balance, so I'd also be all for keeping it > > as it is, possibly just rewording a little bit or so if needed. > > > > I did not do much in the last weeks in the issue tracker, mainly because > someone else was faster than me. The turnaround time from report to fix > sometimes is very impressive and the issue is already closed fixed > before I see it. > > However I read all the notifications and currently I don't see a need > for issue template adjustments regarding version upgrades. > > To me it feels that the recent duplicates are mostly only fixed in git > and not yet released as a proper version. So users would need to upgrade > to some intermediate version or apply a patch. This is hardly something > that we should expect of them. > So the "problem" is not "users don't upgrade", but rather "users don't > have something to upgrade to".
Speaking of which; we have two high profile fixes in the 2.0 tree currently, the health check fix and the header mangling fix: 0f0393fc0d2ba #278 6884aa3eb00d #116 #290 #292 I'd suggest to release 2.0.7, seeing as how many people are affected by this (and 2 maintainers - FreeBSD and Vincent's private uptodate build for Debian/Ubuntu - already ship builds with ab160a47ac reverted). As for the template change, let's maintain the situation as is then. Lukas
