On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 18:22 -0700, Bob Arendt wrote: > Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > I'm not talking about QA.. I'm talking about verifying that the > > volunteer maintainers are actually still in place a year+ later. How > > do make users aware that packages are unmaintained for 1+ years? Do > > you plan to expire unmaintained packages so new users don't have > > access to them?You have to have some process to verify that the > > maintainers are there because you are explicitly stating that the life > > of branch depends on an accurate count of the active maintainers. if > > you don't build a process to try to verify maintainer involvement..the > > branches could live forever because there is no pre-defined EOL. > > > > > I really don't see how a Fedora Legacy can be maintained. Ask yourselves: How can EPEL be maintained? > If the goal is increased stability and security patches, The goal would be "extended life-time" at "no guarantees/use at your own risk". > you need to guarantee that you have > folks supporting > backpatches to the kernel, glibc, firefox, evolution, openoffice, and > several other large > and complex packages. Incorporating new security patches into old > baselines is *hard*. Right, ... the consequence would be instability and security risks gradually creeping in. This is bad, nevertheless it still would better than letting people stay with totally discontinued/unmaintained Fedoras or with driving them away from Fedora and redirecting them to CentOS or RHEL. > Plus Fedora would "fork" a new release every 6 months. How many legacy > Fedora's would be retained? At some point it seems the legacy volunteer > force > would saturate and legacy Fedora's would have to start dropping off > every 6 months. Right, ... nevertheless, such an extended life-time would provide people more time to upgrade to a newer Fedora. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
