Josh Boyer wrote:
> Fedora Legacy (the original one) failed.
It failed because of excess bureaucracy (they didn't even trust Bugzilla's
authentication, requiring GPG signing of all Bugzilla comments with impact
on the procedures, and QA requirements were also unrealistic given the
manpower).
> The last time something like this was proposed, it generated a few
> meetings and some discussion here and on f-a-b. I have yet to see
> anything actually come of that.
Patrice Dumas's proposal failed because he wasn't provided with the required
infrastructure (and he was unable to come up with it himself, which I can't
blame him for).
> Without a concrete group of people large enough to make this wory saying
> that they are signing up to do that work, I don't have high hopes for this
> succeeding in the long run.
We'd just need some minimal infrastructure effort, one person willing to do
the pushes (like you're doing for the supported releases) and everything
else would be "as is", if somebody wants something fixed, they'll have to
push the fix, if nobody cares, it won't be fixed. It isn't supported after
all. And no QA, if it breaks, you get to keep the pieces. Again, it's
unsupported, that means what it means. I still think it's better than not
getting any security fixes at all.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
