Guangcong Luo wrote: > I don't think any other software company has done that, ever, which > should be the first clue that perhaps it's a bad idea. We are not a software company. And we do not produce commercial games, so please don't compare us with them all the time.
> Is there anything wrong with continuing to support 2.2.4 nominally, > like we do now? It's a lie. We haven't supported 2.2.4 for at least three months now (r8763 was the last commit to the 2.2-branch, r8283 was the last commit to 2.2.4-tag). And there is a difference between "latest stable" and "supported" version. We label something "stable" if it's good enough (compared to what it was before we improved it). So, we won't say there is no stable version, only that the last stable version isn't supported anymore (and has not been supported for 5 months, the release of 2.2.4). > It's really a rather minimal amount of extra work; I > mean, when's the last time we've gotten a 2.2.4 bug report? Probably you are missing the point here (or I am xD): It's not about the additional work of "maintaining" the 2.2 series, it's about informing the users of the state the project is in. We don't lose anything saying that we do not have a _supported_ stable version currently, we've got a supported beta. And that's one of the advantages of being a FLOSS project: You don't need to think about all the stuff marketing people in companies have to do, we won't lose a single dollar/euro. Additionally I don't care that much about our "reputation" as long as it's defined as "lie to people so they are happy instead of telling them the truth". - Kreuvf
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
