On 07/06/2009 09:19 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
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'?
Between packages and maintainers, only maintainers are in a position to
opt-in.
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.
And it is proposed, it's just not everywhere in the text:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle#Notes
-- Jeroen
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
