Tom Yates wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Jesse Keating wrote:
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.
RH has not had such a timetable. nothing lasts for ever, so if it's
felt we should drop them, i can happily get behind that decision - but i
would ask that we give three months' warning.
I too have RH7.3 in production use, but feel that it's now getting
towards the time to end support. As has been noted in this thread
that's a 4 year lifespan. I'm not really impressed in that as an OS
lifespan, but in the current security climate, and with the difficulties
of maintaining old OSS codebases, that's the way of the world.
I do think that when the decision to EOL RH7.3/9 Legacy is made that a
final date should be decided on (in the region of 3-6 months ahead) and
clearly communicated to the user base. It's much easier to plan
migration around a 30th Oct deadline than "a support will pull when FCx
hits such and such a milestone".
John
--
fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
