On Monday, 4 June 2018 7:43:51 PM AEST Rhonda D'Vine wrote:
> > This is really a minor concern and it wouldn't even be valid if we
> > continue backporting for next release.
>
> Oh, it very well is, because the upgrade path that we want to ensure is
> from oldstable+backports to currentstable without backports. You might
> consider it minor yourself, but it's not to us.
I find it hard to believe. Having no upgrade path versus having no backport
at all? But backported software could be useful regardless of upgrade path.
Backported software may never make it to next release after upload to
backports...
> That package get removed and discontinued is what kind of reasoning to
> not try to offer a proper upgrade path in the first place? Sorry, I
> can't follow what you say at all.
The point is that you never know if there will be an upgrade path at all.
Of course it is good to aim at potential upgrade path but IMHO uncertainty in
regards to future upgrade path shouldn't invalidate immediately useful
backport. One can never be sure about future upgrade path as many things may
change during release cycle.
--
Best wishes,
Dmitry Smirnov.
---
Faith: not wanting to know what the truth is.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.