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
No comments:
Post a Comment