On 5/15/06, Eric Rostetter <rostetter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quoting Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Sure, for RHL it is about stability. But with FC it was more about > extending the lifespan. And to me, it really doesn't make sense to > change the way in which the Fedora Project treats a release just because > a different set of folks are touching it.
> I'm trying to establish a scenario where the Fedora Project as a whole > has a certain lifespan for a Fedora (core+extras) release. An end user > really shouldn't care how the updates are generated, just that they are > published and announced in the same spaces, and that the content of said > updates. As long as they don't break more than they fix...
I think the problem with defining this is that the QA resources are even more limited than the developer resources. So a lot of problems do not get seen because we have a 3 'worksforme' and no "For Cthulhu's sake, don't push this" -- Stephen J Smoogen. CSIRT/Linux System Administrator -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
