-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tres Seaver wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: >>> On Tuesday 04 April 2006 22:07, NARS wrote: >>> >>>> If fedoralegacy supported FC1 for so long why to take fc2 out >>>> > now? Try to >>>> do a search on dedicated servers providers, you will find >>>> most > of them >>>> still provide FC2, and for eg. Plesk supports FC3 only on >>>> latest > versions >>>> (officially)... another example, look at this poll at ART's >>>> site: >>>> > http://www.atomicrocketturtle.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=NS-Polls&file > >>>> =index&req=results&pollID=6&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 >>>> >>>> I think FC2 is still used by many people, I would suggest you >>>> > consider >>>> supporting FC2 for some more time if possible. >>> >>> Honestly, I feel that supporting FC1 for so long was a mistake. >>> > It set a >>> precedence that I really don't want to continue. Legacy picked >>> a > timeline >>> that fit well with what Fedora produces, and what RHEL (and > rebuilds) offer. >>> Going further than that is really beyond the scope of the >>> Fedora > Project as a >>> whole. Falling back into our 1-2-3 and out set schedule will >>> be > the best >>> thing, and to get to that point we need to drop FC1 and FC2, to >>> > make room for >>> FC3. We need to concentrate on doing better for the releases >>> we > do support, >>> and adding to the workload is not the way to do this. Fedora >>> is > great, and >>> the lifespan we can give it is a good, but if you need more, >>> you > should >>> probably be looking at RHEL or one of its rebuilds. > > I don't know that you had any alternative: AFAICT, the active > maintainers *all* care about older releases (RH73., RH9, FC1); I > haven't seen a package QA'ed for FC2 before those since it rolled > to Legacy. > > Dropping the releases which get actual love may feel cleaner, but > I don't think you are going to get the folks who have been > maintaining those older releases to switch to a newer FC: they > will, as you point out, more likely switch away from Fedora > altogether. Perhaps there are a group of volunteers who care about > more recent FC releases, and who can take up the load. > > Best, > > > Tres. Tres, I think that may be a better compromise. We just need to break it up into whoever is willing to support each release and for how long and not worry about scrapping each release before it is time. It will go like RH8 did with support for 7.3 sticking around.... mostly, due to the support of the community. James Kosin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFENQ18kNLDmnu1kSkRArDtAJ9uiLmaRZQ/koRdsC00PWp1ZDNEHwCfWReV 6BRVwA63LtpKZyuCjMkh74g= =ioVN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
