Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wednesday 13 December 2006 14:58, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Gack. Is this really what we're trying to accomplish? This all
goes back to what is Fedora. It is not all things to all people - I
truly feel if you want multiple years of maintenance, you should be
looking at things like RHEL (or other prominent enterprise linux
distributions.)
+1. 13 months I think is a great middle ground. Anything longer and you're
really talking about a different product and really hampering the ability to
get new things into new releases.
I am sure there is a lot of room between 13 months and 7 years. If you
see the plan about only critical security fixes, thats about 20 updates
an year or just about *10 updates* for 6 months. Again see
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-security-list/2006-October/msg00006.html.
For a desktop variant an year worth of updates might be good enough
but does anyone really think we should have a server variant the same
way instead of putting out a dozen more updates and extending the life
cycle?
Rahul
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list
fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
