Jeroen van Meeuwen (kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > These two are my big concerns - doing this badly is worse than not > > doing it, IMO. When it comes to user's security, I don't want to give > > promises we can't keep, or leave them in a bind. > > This has been addressed in another response to the quoted message from > Kevin. OK. When you state in the feature page: "Note that the following items may only apply to those that opt-in on ELC support" that implies that it would not apply to every package. Or are you referring to 'users who opt-in to use ELC'? > > Also, just going back to original first principles: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives > > > > "Fedora is not interested in having a slow rate of change, but rather to > be > > innovative. We do not offer a long-term release cycle because it diverts > > attention away from innovation." > > > > Long term support, in general, goes against the directly objectives of > the > > project. If it's felt that extending the life cycle a *specific, > > measureable > > amount* would be of more benefit to the project, that's probably a board > > issue, > > not a FESCo issue. > > > > I've heard before it does not feel like a Feature. I guess it'll be up to > FESCo to decide on whether or not to make a decision on this, or to relay > the issue to the Board? Probably, yes. But this is why I think the specific amount of extension is a good idea to state - it makes the proposal more actionable. Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
