On Feb 10, 2008 7:56 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Once again this is the same for fedora. The usual processes (MIA, > mailing lists, escalation to the proper commitee) would be right, at > least until we find something better in fedora. It's not the same... you are proposing a completely open-ended timeframe for a branch, based on continued maintainership of a set of "core" items. That unlimited timeframe equates to unlimited risk. For fedora right now, we know exactly how long a release cycle and the timeframe sets a boundary on how long something could be maintained in name only. The current branches expire at a certain time whether someone is maintaining things or not. You are proposing to build a branch which can only expire if people stop maintaining things...totally different...totally. -jef -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
