On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 00:01 +0200, shmuel siegel wrote: > Patrice Dumas wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 09:12:05PM +0000, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > >> 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: > >> > > > > I completly agree. This is simple and leave everything to the packagers > > initiative, I think that it is also what Ralf had in mind. But some people > > insisted on communicating to the public what was maintained, hence my > > proposal. But what you propose is better. > > > > -- > > Pat > > > > > Up to here you definitely had my sympathy. But this anarchical approach > makes me wonder who your target audience is. All "users", esp. those who currently stay with discontinued and unmaintained Fedoras, because - they are not aware about these Fedora's being dead. - they can't cope with the "frequent upgrades" or can't afford upgrading at the point in time a Fedora release is going EOL. discontinued. - they can't upgrade for technical reasons. Another aspect would be "keep users with Fedora" and to not force them to resort to other distros. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
