On Sun, 2013-01-06 at 04:54 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
1.2.x is really really old
It might be old (only deprecated 12 months ago though so not THAT old)
i do not know here you work but where i work is a no longer maintained software a no-go
Most places prefer known stability over tinkering techs, the track history of the projects dictates what happens with updates, I stay up to day on stable productions like httpd, php, bind, and postfix, I had that faith in dovecot 1.x, but following the constant near weekly patches in the 2 series early on - no, I don't at this point in time, have faith in 2.0|1's maturity.
That's not a swipe at Timo, trust me, I'll apply the same forensic review on all major version bumps, like bind 10, postfix 3, php 6, mysql 6, and so on.
but it is very, very, stable (and widely used in large installations and likely will be for some time to come)
oh yeah, "large installations" is anotehr word for "nobody cares"
really, I thought it meant SP's with hundreds of thousands, or millions, of users, plenty of them out there ya know who do actually care, and its because they care, they stick with what they consider mature versions of the software.
That said, it is pointless reporting a bug for it if one is found
that is the point
I dont get your point, if it is mature and stable and aint broke, who actually cares?
Personally, I consider 2.1.x more of a risk then 1.2 so I'm sticking with 1.2.17 until there is an urgent and compelling reason to move to 2.1, that's much the same attitude with other admins I speak to on IRC.
Just because something is a current release, does not make it mature software, mature software is stable software that doesn't release often nor need to have patches issued every other week - THAT is what RC's and betas are for.