On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 10:14:07AM -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > 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. Although it is different, I can't see how it is different with regard with control over bad maintainers. And I can't see why the processes right for Fedora are not right here. If you have an idea how to solve that issue in fedora, submit it to FESCo and it will certainly work in UAEL too. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
