On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 17:52 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote: > > > As described on the Feature page, but if there's any specific > questions > about the reasoning on there I'll be happy to answer those questions. I had read the feature page, in which you claim that a three-year cycle "disqualifies the distribution(s) as desktop Linux distributions". I didn't see any justification for that assertion, especially given that you're simultaneously claiming that a 13-month lifetime isn't long _enough_ for you. You've conveniently dodged the question of what lifetime you _do_ want to provide, by saying 'yet to be determined'. But you must have _some_ idea, if you're so sure that 13 months is too short and 36 months is too long. So if three years is too long and one year is too short, what _do_ you want? 2 years? 18 months? 18 months would be a single extra Fedora release, and that _might_ be something we could make some progress on. How much work would it take, to make it possible for us to still ship updates for a release which has officially reached EOL? Does the sky fall on our heads if we don't push the 'Kill F-9' button in koji and bodhi precisely 1 month after the F-11 release? As a first step, perhaps we try that -- still officially state that the release is EOL and should not be used, but _allow_ interested people like Jeroen (and the original package owners, _if_ they are so inclined) to continue to build and push updates, instead of forcibly cutting off builds and updates as we do at the moment. That _isn't_ something we would publish as a 'feature' though -- it would strictly _unofficial_, although you'd be permitted to use the Fedora infrastructure for it. If it turns out that there _is_ enough interest and the interested people are _actually_ keeping on top of security fixes etc., then maybe we could consider officially admitting that it happens, and _then_ publishing it as a 'feature'. And/or extending it to more than one extra release. But those are all questions for the future. If it doesn't take too much infrastructure work, I see no reason why we shouldn't let them _try_. It doesn't hurt Fedora at all, does it? -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@xxxxxxxxx Intel Corporation -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
