On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 12:18:51AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: >Josh Boyer wrote: >> 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. Is there a reason any of that can't be done as a secondary arch-like effort? I've already pointed out why it's painful to keep EOL releases around. You didn't really address those, and you seemed to have grouped them into "minimal infrastructure effort". I didn't touch on package signing earlier, but that is another potential hurdle. Let me put is this way: None of the items I have listed are show-stoppers or insurmountable. However, unless someone comes forward with _concrete_ proposals on how to approach them and actual _people_ willing to work on it, they won't change. I don't think that is an undue burden to having this approved by a governing committee, whether it be FESCo or the Board. It's as simple as that. I think Jeroen understands that, and he seems to really want constructive criticism on the proposal. So I'll be happy to wait and see what comes of this. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
