On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 08:37:11AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 2008-12-24 at 15:46 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > A link to where you can find the upstream release notes would actually > help here. Indeed, but the project doesn't provide anything useful in that respect. It is quite astonishing, that some intergral tools in the Debian toolchain have rather litte public interfaces. > > Otherwise we should consider an offcial two phase support scheme where > > functionality/enhancements/minor bugs are phased out earlier than the > > final EOL. That way packagers would have a target line of what makes > > sense to backpackage and when to not. Currently everyone draws this > > line arbitrary from the release of the next Fedora release to the > > actual EOL date. > > I support the general idea of this, a loose guideline, letting > maintainers make their own judgment. Probably the most important part is where to set this fuzzy date between full support and maintenance support, so packagers have a common notion of when to stop pushing updates to certain releases. > Thanks for that. One thing you didn't address though, why is this going > directly to stable? Previous updates (not only for fakeroot) showed that there isn't much happening in testing, I have to do most of the testing locally or with direct coordination with the other interested parties. Adding that a later push from testing to stable a few days before EOL would be even more alarming I became stable-trigger-happy. Turns out to be a bad thing as any modification requests to bodhi (like ones resulting from this thread) didn't get a chance to be molded in. I'll get back to normal testing/stable procedures (I get more often complaints that the packages remain too long in stable, now i ballanced it off :). Happy Xmas! -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpEYLxomDeC6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
