On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> open? Without a firm timeline on when to close a branch.. will we >> ever see a branch close? > > Why would we want to? Just let things going as long as there is at least one > maintainer committing something. Even if not all security issues get fixed, > it's better than if none gets fixed. I don't think anyone would sign up as a user for such "support". LTS is about a fairly specific promise that is very hard to commit to. The work I am doing would definitely benefit from having some Fedora releases turn into LTS, even if it's perhaps for clearly defined a subset of packages. What Ubuntu does with it's LTS is hard for the distro team but is excellent for "users" (re-spinners) like OLPC. At the moment, it's not clear to me (perhaps because I haven't read the appropriate doco...) - Which Fedora release becomes the base for the next RH/CentOS release. - How I transition my userbase from Fedora support to CentOS support at EOL So I think it is a fair expectation to be able to "follow" a Fedora release into its RH/CentOS stabilisation, knowing that the process exists and that the stable branches are published. It definitely works for other distros. Perhaps it's possible with Fedora -- hints and pointers welcome. But I would not sign up for the "whatever" support plan some people are suggesting -- how the hell do I plan for it? Ah, some things might get patched, some might not, and we won't know or tell in advance. cheers, m -- martin.langhoff@xxxxxxxxx martin@xxxxxxxxxx -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
