On Wed, 24 May 2017, Ben Hutchings wrote: > 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. We will probably close jessie-bpo with the end of the main support. It seems that is was a nice idea, but it unsupportable. Alex
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature