On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 07:11:30 -0400, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > No, the sky does not fall. There are a few hurdles though. > > 1) Master mirror space. This used to be an issue, in that we had to move > older releases to alt.fp.o in order to make space for the new release. I > believe we still do that, so either the yum.repo.d config files for the EOL > release would need to be changed, or we'd have to grow a lot more mirror > space. > > 2) Update push times. It takes 3+ hours to mash f9-updates right now. > Keeping > that time duration in the official updates pushing for an EOL release would > be really annoying. Particularly since we are already going to hit some > major > time hurdles as F10 and F11 age and definitely when we add F12. > These are very valid constraints/concerns which I've added to the Feature wiki page. This is stuff I like to hear ;-) > It doesn't work that way in practice. If it is allowed, it is official. > You > have to coordinate downtimes, End-of-Life-After-Death times, etc. The > minute > it's disabled early for one reason or another (space, time constraints, > etc) > people will cry foul even if it was "unofficial". > This (downtimes, etc) is why initially, I wanted the period of time between EOS and EOL to match a release cycle. I guess these dependencies make it a little more required to stick with periods of time equal to the release-cycle of a Fedora release. >>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. > > I would encourage people to run this as a secondary architecture. CVS > still > remains open for commits. You could just have a secondary koji hub for the > builds. > It that's the solution to problems (to be) set forth, then so be it. I would love to have it as part of the primary infrastructure but then again it's no blocker. >>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? > > There is minimal pain, yes. Mostly to infrastructure and rel-eng. What I > don't immediately see is the benefit to Fedora overall. > Is it you question the benefit given in the paragraph on the Feature page, or ...? Thanks, Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
