On Mon, Nov 29, 2021, at 14:09, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
The primary reason stable branches exist is to make it easier for us to test and publish backports of critical patches to older versions of the software, rather than expecting our downstream consumers to do that work themselves. If you're saying distribution package maintainers are going to do it anyway and ignore our published backports, then dropping the branching model may make sense, but I've seen evidence to suggest that at least some distros do consume our backports directly.
Don't get me wrong, SUSE is consuming those backports, and (at least was) contributing to them. And yes, I doubt that RH/SUSE/Canonical are simply consuming those packages without ever adding their patches on a case by case basis. So yes, those distros are already doing part of their work downstream (and/or upstream). And for a valid reason: it's part of their job :) Doesn't mean we, as a whole community, still need to cut the work for every single consumer. If we are stretched thin, we need to define priorities. I believe our aggressive policy in terms of branching is hurting the rest of the ecosystem, that's why I needed to say things out loud. I meant the less we branch, the less we backport, the less painful upgrades we have to deal with. It depends on our definition of _when to branch_ of course. Your example of a "critical patch" might be a good reason to branch. We are maybe in a place where this can be on a case by case basis, or that we should improve that definition? Regards, JP