Re: rails backports

[bob@proulx.com (Bob Proulx)]

Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Adam Majer schrieb am Sunday, den 27. January 2008:
> > (please cc me on replies)
> > 1.2.6 is not in testing - it *was* in testing. It is not in stable
> > either. That is the issue here. 1.2.6 has a lot of fixes not available
> > in current stable, but stable policy will not allow it into Etch.
> Then it is no candidate for backports.org. 

If the package had been submitted at the time that it was in Testing
then it would have been a valid candidate at that time.  If that had
happened then this package could still be remaining in backports.  I
am sure that many other packages that exist in backports now have had
their Testing versions move one and leave them behind.

In the spirit of backports it should be a candidate.  The need being
that a solid upgrade path will exist from Stable+Backports to the next
Stable is perfectly preserved.

Adam Majer wrote:
> 1.2.6 has a lot of fixes not available in current stable, but stable
> policy will not allow it into Etch.
>
> 1.2.6 is quite compatible with the 1.1.6 in Etch. It is the best of
> the 1.x rails branch. I'm actually using it for an application that
> does not work with 2.x branch.

This is a good description of the issue and for users is a good reason
to have a backport of it available.  The rails-1.1.6 in stable really
shouldn't be used anymore.  The rails 1.2.6 is still quite viable
while people transition to the, quite a bit different, rails 2.0.

I think it would be a good thing to see rails 1.2.6 in backports.

Bob