Backporting rlm_rest to 2.1.x

[Gavin Alves]

>
> how do you designate 'mature' software?  old software can and does have
> bugs too -
> well used software might be 'mature' in way of updates/patches but then you
> have no features.   we need more people to be running 3.0 so that we can
> find
> any other issues and maybe see a sooner release or 3.0.1 etc
>
> I've only running 3.0 HEAD on my test systems now - no longer looking at
> 2.1.x or
> 2.2.x updates - and it wont be long before it'll be just 3.x on production
> systems
> too.
>

Point taken.  The reality is that many organisations will not upgrade
software until there are packages maintained in their distro, By this point
a business can assume at least some minimum standard of 3rd party quality
assurance and peer review.  A really strong case would be needed for a home
brew release (which I don't think I could make as 2.1 works very well for
us).

As for getting people onto 3.0; a classic catch 22.  Updating the website,
api docs, distributing binary packages and so on might help.  I was not
even aware of it until yesterday.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freeradius.org/pipermail/freeradius-devel/attachments/20120811/0e56db8e/attachment.html>