christian- background of this thread here: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/2004-December/msg00104.html On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 00:27, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Rob Myers wrote: > >> The biggest issue here is probably how much effort we'd be willing to > >> put doing QA and handling the breakage that this approach would imply. > > > > again, it is not clear to me that a "merged" FC-1 tree implies more than > > minimal updates. > > In the particular example you quoted, it did certainly mean more than > minimal updates. i agree. i found it disconcerting that it was checked into the FC-1, and that is why i pointed it out... <snip> > For example, Red Hat folks might, for some reason, update packages > in all of their archs (FC1..FC3) even though FC1 is no longer being > updated -- which would be a clear non-minimal update. Bugfixes might > also be put in all the releases at the same time. i would like for someone at redhat to clarify their use of the EOL'd trees. how do they use them now? how do they intend to use the in the future? would they be able/willing to coordinate check-ins on EOL'd trees with the fedora legacy project? rob. ps- cc'd the redhat person who announced the cvs tree in the hopes of getting some info about redhat's process/policy on EOL'd trees -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
