FAQ: drop mention of 1.4?

[Peter Lebbing]

On 28/08/15 16:12, Johan Wevers wrote:
> I see this attitude a lot among software developers and it irritates me:
> drop support for "obsolete" features and still try to force everyone to
> upgrade, [...]

1.4 is fully supported, but occupies a niche. Support is not dropped, nobody
forces you to upgrade. I really don't see where that is coming from. This is
about what one specific document, the FAQ, should treat. 1.4 is still completely
documented, but this niche application you cherish might not warrant the label
/frequently/, the letter F of the FAQ.

Can we please stay on subject. Your message feels like a general rant that has
nothing to do with the FAQ whatsoever.

> [...] combined with the inability to accept that at some time
> software can be feature-complete and only bugfixes are needed.

Funny you mention that. I thought the main difference between 1.4 and 2.x was
that 1.4 just receives bugfixes and new features end up in 2.x. It sounds like
you got exactly what you wanted, yet you feel the need to lash out in a
discussion that has nothing to do with reducing support for 1.4.

There's some tension between two of your desires, by the way. What if your
correspondents in a few years have ECC keys? When 1.4 doesn't get ECC support,
you could complain that they apparently have dropped support for 1.4. But if it
does get ECC support, you can complain that 1.4 is feature-complete and should
only receive bugfixes. Or if your glass is half full, you could even be happy
with either outcome. I think Brian from Monty Python has something to say about it.

Peter.

-- 
I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail.
You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy.
My key is available at <http://digitalbrains.com/2012/openpgp-key-peter>