On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 08:04:37PM -0600, Matt Dowle wrote: > > > It is NOT 16 years old. You keep saying that. There is a different > development > process involved here which has upsides and downsides and which I don't > expect > you will understand. > > 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. >
I am not sure to understand why our zlib version (which might be called a maintained fork from 16 years old version) would be more risky than pushing a newer version just because 'it is newer'. We are not hostile to make changes, but at least please told us what should be changed/adjusted and why it is important for your use-case. And if it doesn't hurt us too, changes will be done: patches are accepted. Thanks. -- Sebastien Marie
