On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 12:00:26PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > Here is what I think can happen. Oh, hey, that was fast. :) > A) Kill off RHL now. Stop trying to do stuff there when we just don't have > the man power or the volunteers. > B) Move to using Extras infrastructure for building packages. They're > ready for us for FC3 and FC4. So RHL has been the hold-up there? In that case, *definitely* time to end RHL support; RHL != Fedora anyway. I really, really think the bugzilla process should be moved to be more "normal", too -- one bug # per release, even if the issue is identical in FC3 and FC4. (That's why there's the "clone bug" bugzilla feature.) > C) Move to Core style updates process. Spin a possible update, toss it > in -testing. If nobody says boo after a period of time, release the darn > thing. If somebody finds it to be broken, fix it and resubmit. Yes. Better this than nothing. > Somewhere in there convince Luke Macken to do the work to get a Fedora > Update tool available for use externally that does the boring stuff like > generate the email with the checksums and with the subpackage list and all > that boring stuff. It could even handle moving the bug to 'MODIFIED' when > it goes in updates-testing, and finally to CLOSED when it goes to release. Yes. How much work will this convincing take? Does he accept bribes? [...] > I honestly think that doing these things is the only way that Legacy will > survive. I agree that they're needed. I guess the question is: will it be enough? -- Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://mattdm.org/> Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/> -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
