Patrice Dumas <pertusus <at> free.fr> writes:
> In my response to that mail, failing to have a metric I retired my
> proposal, and nobody supported my views (and overall nobody supported my
> views).
In terms of those metrics, I'm still in favor of a mostly anarchical approach:
* Don't promise *anything* yet - tell users that they may or may not get
updates. Promises can come if the project turns out working.
* Lift *all* ACLs for the EOL branches (yes, even for the kernel).
* Security fixes can be committed and built by *anyone* without asking for
anyone's approval.
* Likewise for bug fixes which went into the lowest maintained Fedora release
(but they can be pushed to testing resp. stable no earlier than to testing
resp. stable for that release).
* Anything else is strongly discouraged and needs approval from both the
maintainer and some committee (which should be granted only in reasonable
cases, such as new hardware support). (That's where the anarchy ends, otherwise
we can end up in all sorts of absurd situations.) If necessary, offenders could
be banned from committing to EOL branches.
* Just push out the results to the official Fedora repositories.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
