Matt Dowle <mattjdowle@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.
No comments:
Post a Comment