Kristian Fiskerstrand posted on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:58:11 +0100 as excerpted:
> On 01/16/2018 03:45 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: >> Given the situation, we have a choice: Remove GnuCash altogether, or >> press ahead with recommending a version upstream considers unstable. > > Or 3, discuss with upstream to see if they can release an updated > version as stable branch. This reminds me very much of the long-time stability situation with grub-0.9x vs. 1.9x. Upstream insisted 0.9x was unsupported, and indeed, had abandoned it, such that it was the distros carrying upstream- unapproved patches, but at the same time, pre-2.0 as 1.9x was still very much development-only and not ready for prime-time, according to upstream. Just what were distros and users /supposed/ to do? Both that and this gnucash thing are bad situations all around, but perhaps some lessons can be had. And agreed that surely the first must be to /just/ /ask/ upstream whether they can release something stable that's at least based on something still getting maintenance, security and otherwise. Then go from there. Maybe they'll refuse and we'll have to move ahead with the new version regardless of upstream's wishes, but we'll never know if we don't ask. (Of course it can go the other way too, upstream insisting the new version is stable even when it's still broken for normal users every which way to Sunday. The kde3/kde4 transition is a prime example of that. I honestly don't know which is worse, but the obvious ideal is a sane upstream that doesn't veer to either extreme, or lacking that, at least cooperates and provides support when a new at least /semi-/stable release is needed as the old is just outdated and broken, security or otherwise.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
