Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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'd love to see this. It could e.g. keep a service in the process of being decommissioned alive a little longer without having to do the usual upgrade. It wouldn't be good for anything too serious, but if noone steps up for a necessary security patch, I could do it myself and then get to share the result with everyone else on that obsolete release. I would have to test all updates locally, but for services on the way out that is generally easier than testing the full upgrade. If it breaks something for someone, well, they should be more careful which updates they apply, especially once official support is gone. It might even encourage an upgrade and perhaps keep one box from being compromised. /Benny -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
