On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 11:44 PM, ToddAndMargo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 05/23/2015 04:02 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:20 PM, ToddAndMargo <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>> On 05/23/2015 01:10 PM, Jamie Duncan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How far back should red hat port fixes? The policy is public and adhered
>>>> to...
>>>
>>> They should just follow their word. They state 2020.
>>> Support means support. Freezing all the bugs in
>>> is not support.
>>>
>>> And Red Hat has seemed to have lost interest in 6
>>> now that they have 7.
>>>
>>> Here is another example:
>>>
>>> "livecd-tools" is horrible. The stick you create refuses
>>> to boot in most computers. The "persistence" is trashed.
>>> There is a 3GB barrier on ext3 partitions. Yada, yada, yada.
>>>
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1220107
>>>
>>> "I'll make updates for specific problems, but I'm not
>>> going to backport anything to rhel6."
>>>
>>> In other words, don't hold your breath.
>>
>> BCL then explains: "I'll work on fixing those specific things when I
>> get a chance. But there won't be a total rebase of the code, specific
>> fixes only."
>>
>> It's, again, an RFE bug...
>
>   And BCL also said:
>
>        "Status: CLOSED WONTFIX"
>
> I tagged the bug as RFE because I was being polite.
> I have found that sometimes it is better for them to discover
> it is a bug.

The 3 GB limit is a feature not a bug; in the same way that, for
example, the ext4 maximum filesystem size is different in SL6 and SL7.

You're asking for that 3 GB feature to be enhanced.

BCL has to consider how complex the fix'll be to backport and keep in
mind that this fix might introduce a bug.

So his default reaction to an RFE _HAS_ to be to NACK it and, if it's
something that he thinks is good, integrate it into a future version.