4 ms·

That actually sounds like an interesting business model. What form would the transaction take?

• amelius 9y ago
  Yes, and how would maintainers know which versions of their software are actually still used?
  • ebiester 9y ago
    You mark releases as "Stable and supported" and have corporations subscribe against releases. If you are subscribed to a release, you get bug fixes for that release. If someone does not have a subscription to a release, it does not get updated, and if there is no current subscription for that release, you don't accept new ones. You always allow people to move forward their subscriptions, but never backwards. You provide migration paths for each supported release. People will pay for it.
• j_s 9y ago
  https://railslts.com/ https://railslts.com/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2013/06/17/if-your-business-uses-rails-2-3-you-need-to-move-to-a-supported-option-asap/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2013/06/17/if-your-business-uses-ra... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5893961 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5893961
• eropple 9y ago
  "Here are the keys to a private artifact repo. We will update N major/minor/whatever versions." I am low-key building a marketplace for this, because this really should exist. The problem, as a marketplace, is identifying projects both important enough that people will pay for it and aren't* already functionally owned by a company that has a vested interest in their own project management. (Are you a maintainer who's interested in something like this? Are there projects you would pay for this for? I want to hear from you. com dot edropple at ed)