On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 16:12 -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote: > You can though think it does make sense to change the handling because > it is EOL, independent of who is touching it. EOL means end of development > which means end of upgrades, at least to some. Can we agree to not use the term EOL in this way? I made a huge mistake in starting this trend. We really should be looking at 'EOL' as when _we_ stop touching it. It should be considered Maintenance Mode after Red Hat stops touching it. This line may blur if/when Core + Extras gets merged into one happy 'verse of packages maintained by a combination of external and internal folks, then the Maint Mode becomes a timeline issue not when RH stops touching it issue. Regardless, EOL shouldn't be until the Fedora Project in general stops touching it. > One question is what size of upgrades are you talking about. There's > a big difference in going from kernel 2.4.12 to 2.4.13 versus going > from 2.4.12 to 2.6.10 (just made up version numbers, but you get the idea). > Same with going from apache 1.x.5 to 1.x.6 versus going from apache > 1.x.5 to apache 2.x.y. True, those would be insane. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
