On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 18:56 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > Agreed. In fact I think that we could start something even without B) > available in packagekit, but only with a manual change in the yum config > files. But packagekit pointing to the post-eol repo would be even > better. That's acceptable to me too. > > > Furthermore I would want to prevent maintainers who do not wish to > > participate in the post-EOL update world from getting bugzilla reports > > by people using their software in EOL releases. > > My proposal is to do a mass orphaning of EOLed branches, such that a > maintainer has to actively step in. But I can't see a way to avoid bugs > labelled against a non EOLed branch to reach the current maintainer. If > a packager maintains a EOLed branch I also thing that it should be > mandatory (and also logical!) to be in watchbugzilla (if the maintainer > agrees, of course) to do bug triaging, but for those that are orphaned > in the EOLed branch I can't see waht to do for wrongly labelled bugs. Right, it would be silly of me to expect you to somehow prevent people from filing bugs to the wrong release. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
