On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 15:03, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 20:41:56 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot > <Nicolas.Mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > As a matter of fact, since a RHEL lifetime is 5 years truncating > > anything older than that would probably be ok. But there *will* be > > people who install a first-gen RHEL2.1 (because that's the version their > > OS dpt validated) near RHEL2.1 end-of-life who'll then update it > > partially or completely to the latest updates. So in some cases, 5y is a > > reasonable minimum. > > RHEL users and the timescales invovled there might be a valid concern, > if the fedora package histories are deeply mingled with the RHEL > package histories. If Red Hat packagers end up stripping items from > fedora packages and them just needing to put the items back for rhel > packages, that seems a bit wasteful concerning the small amount of > data that has been quantified so far in this list. Depends on what > Red Hat does internally as to whether chopping the changelogs in > fedora will affect rhel users later on. RHEL users also have something that many fedora developers don't: the ability to use support (in one of at least 15 languages) to help answer questions that may or may not be covered by a truncated, full, or non-existent changelog, and to expect an answer that meets their satisfaction in a defined amount of time. I think it's best (especially on this list) to focus on what best supports the fedora community--users, developers, and those who provide bandwidth. If Fedora works better on the whole by changing changelog policy, I'm all for it. And if we find ourselves creating other mechanisms to help users support their systems (with or without paid support) that doesn't mean we failed. It means we're evolving. M
