http://drupal.org/node/132496#comment-216902

In a larger discussion the idea came up to add a category to the issue tracker called backport

This would be a place for security patches and other fixes contributed by the community for no longer supported versions (4.6 specifically)

Comments

boris mann’s picture

boris mann commented

I was part of the discussion referenced, and I'm +1 for this.

For older versions of drupal as well as contrib modules, this gives a place for people to find backports without having to take on the official responsibility of supporting older versions.

killes@www.drop.org’s picture

killes@www.drop.org commented

I am opposed to this. This will cause a big load of support requests from either people who can't patch to save their lives or people demanding patches for whatever feature caught their eye.

It will encourage people to run patched up Drupal versions of undefined security status, which again is detrimental for Drupal.

dww’s picture

dww
we/he/they
commented
Status: Active » Closed (won't fix)

we already have "patch (to be ported)"... i don't see how "backports" would be any different. if i'm missing something obvious, please reopen this with a better title and more clear explaination about why we need 2 distinct issue status values related to patches that need to be (or have been) ported to other versions. thanks.

Crell’s picture

Crell commented

My understanding is that "to be ported" is for "Hey drumm, this is a bug fix so please port it back to 5.x, thanks". :-) The proposal is for a "if you're running 5.x and want this particular 6.x feature, apply this patch" status. They are different things.

I'm split on the subject myself. I believe it could be useful, but kills has a point about the potential security and support implications.