On 07/07/2009 02:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Is there a reason any of that can't be done as a secondary arch-like effort?
Nope. Not as far as I can see.
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.
+1 to all of the above. Kind regards, Jeroen van Meeuwen -kanarip -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
