Of course I don't want to see it dropped. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be dropped. Just because it is useful to 10% of the community doesn't mean it should hold up the other 90% of the community. But as part of the 10% of course I don't want to see it dropped. That doesn't mean I would fight to stop it, as I can see the reality of the situation.
If the choice is between a poor release schedule for all four RHL versions, or a good release schedule for 7.3 and 9, I'd pick the good release schedule. As has been mentioned before, upgrading from 7.2 to 7.3 or from 8.0 to 9 is generally simple, the only real pain for most people being that of taking the system offline to upgrade. (Disclaimer: all our RHL systems are running 7.3 and 9, so the decision doesn't affect us either way.)
I don't know what the success rate is for upgrading 7.2->7.3 or 8.0->9 using yum or apt-get dist-upgrade, but if it's high enough, perhaps posting directions on doing so would be valuable. That would eliminate most of the downtime (since it could be done on a live system and require only a reboot).
Others have suggested an "unsupported" tree for 7.2 and 8.0 - basically dispensing with the QA. How about a two-tiered QA? Set up a plan so that if packages for the first-tier releases are done, but packages for second-tier releases aren't after X days, release all the ones that *are* finished with a note that "RHL 8.0 is also vulnerable, but updates are still being tested." Then once the remaining packages *are* done, release the new package and re-release the advisory. On the other hand, this idea may turn out to be more work than doing the QA in the first place.
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications <www.speed.net>
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
