Imminent release of 2.2.5 and 3.0.3

[Phil Mayers]

On 18/04/2014 21:30, Stefan Paetow wrote:

> Ouch!

You have misinterpreted the essence and scope of my complaint.

I've got no problem with people who run LTS distros and vendor packages 
- we do that. It's extremely common, and I think it's a very sensible 
default, and that the LTS distros provide, in the main, a good service.

I've got no (big) problem with people who mandate vendor packages 
entirely. I think the legit reasons for that are very few, and I think a 
lot of the time it's done for wrong reasons - "because ITIL" or "because 
PCI" - but regardless of what *I* think, that is a choice people are 
entitled to make themselves.

(I will say that if "stability" is an argument, then you MUST presumably 
have local testing and signoff procedures. If so, it's unclear to me why 
those can't be used to Q&A a local rebuild, but I'm prepared to accept 
there are reasons. Like I said, local choice)

The problem I have is people coming for free help, then rejecting the 
answers they get because they want to keep the old version that they are 
PAYING for support on. That is impolite and, arguably more important, it 
allows unfriendly vendors to free-ride and hides information from 
friendly vendors about customer priorities.

Asking for help intially is fine, and asking for help building a new 
version is fine. If you can't or won't build a new version, the right 
thing to do is thank the free support for their time, then indicate 
you'll push your vendor to do what they're being paid to do.

Hope this is clear.

Regards,
Phil