As we approach FC6 Test2, we should make a decision wrt RHL7.3/9 and FC1/2. We've been supporting these releases for a while now, and they've grown pretty long in the tooth, even by Legacy standards. Our lifetime policy would dictate that FC1 should be gone already, and FC2 would go when we pick up FC4, so that we're only supporting FC3 and FC4. The RHL releases are a different matter. RHL we agreed to support for a long period of time, however that time may be up. Personally I would really like to see these go, as they take up a lot of our time when trying to push updates, we get very little help, and updates are increasingly more difficult to do. I would like to hear discussion on if we should continue supporting it, how we can make it easier to support, and a reasonable endpoint to the support, an exit strategy. Another issue to consider is our impending merger into the Fedora Infrastructure. This involves using the build machines used for Extras (with our own plague master), a CVS system for us to make commits to for packages, and to store our tools, and a publishing tool for signing packages, staging for websync, sending announcement emails, and closing bugs. This migration I am focusing on supporting FC3+, with the idea that the migration will complete or become usable near the time of FC6Test2. Including support for FC1/2 and especially RHL7.3/9 would greatly increase the complexity of the tools and systems we need to get in place within the Fedora infrastructure. My goal is to make these tools and things as easy to use as possible, to attract new contributors to our project. I also want to decrease the overhead involved in contributing to it, and lowering the number of releases an updater has to worry about would help a lot there too. Whatever we decide wrt RHL7.3/9 and FC1/2, if we decide to continue the support, that continuation would have to be on our existing infrastructure. You have my reasons for removing support and a bit of our roadmap for where the project is going. Given that this is a community project, lets discuss it as a community and come up with some reasonable decisions. -- 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
