On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 22:05 +1000, Stuart Prescott wrote: > I routinely backport packages and deploy them locally. I frequently wonder > if I should upload them to make them more widely useful. And then... > > Perhaps I'm snipping too much here, but is this what you're saying? > > > > Now I'm confused. I thought as a backporter my responsibility for > > > oldstable was limited to the one year period after the new stable was > > > released? Are backporters responsible for LTS support too? > > Of course you are. > > wait, because a few people started an unofficial project to extend support > of the stable release, everyone else is now responsible for supporting that > effort in all manner of other places? [...] > Uploading a > backport has suddenly become a blank cheque for maintenance subject to > future prolongation. Sounds like a world of pain I should avoid. Sorry. I agree; this is not a reasonable demand. I only started working on LTS on the basis that I could do it in work hours. I don't expect anyone to do this comparatively boring stuff as a volunteer. The backports suites and their users would benefit from some clarification about which packages remain supported and how long this is likely to last - defaulting to the end of regular support for the corresponding stable suite. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part