On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 11:36:00PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > It is possible for volunteer based projects to give a better timeframe than > merely a ad-hoc maintenance policy. We need to do this in a more organized > way for end users to take advantage of this. If say the kernel or ssh isn't > maintained and has security issues, would it really be useful for some of > the other core packages to get updates? Since they are in the Core+Base comps group, if one of these packages isn't maintained anymore the whole branch is dropped (as said in my proposal). > How do we really know that? I don't think anybody has really looked at the > man power required for doing just critical security fixes for a few months > more. If we have a maintainer ready to do that for the Core+Base package this would already be very nice. We could expand our promises if it works well, but currently I think that a no warranty proposal like the one I propose is better. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
