3 ms·
>Is the expectation, then, that distributions would have to patch out the regression - or take on a more major upgrade (6.1 / 6.2), likely breaking something el
by Arnavion 4y ago
>Is the expectation, then, that distributions would have to patch out the regression - or take on a more major upgrade (6.1 / 6.2), likely breaking something else?
Correct.
>Neither of these are particularly tenable.
Yes they are.
>Breaking something, calling it EOL, and not fixing it is closer to dead than end of life.
You're awfully confident about how things should work, even though you don't understand how they already work.
- bravetraveler 4y agoDistributions have their own release strategies to pick up what are now in the 6.1/6.2 trees. Some were cut at a bad time where they're treating the now EOL stable as longer term This is really just a pedantic criticism on the handling of 6.0, and the 'ignorance' (I hate the connotation of the term) of why people don't run latest. I'm not asking them to bend over backwards, here. Things are going more or less the way I want, 6.0 will get fixed [edit: upstream]. Please don't take this the wrong way.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]