Matt Dowle <mattjdo...@gmail.com> wrote: > That's right. I don't understand. > Could you explain it then, or point me to a document that explains what > your development process is? > Putting two and two together, it seems that it is 16 years plus a bunch of > cherry picked bug fixes backported over a very many years. If that's what > you do, whilst I understand that can make some sense to keep patching say 5 > year old libraries, at some point it becomes too old and too risky.
So feisty.
