On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:43:48AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > No, it really wouldn't. If the ACLs are open for the kernel on an older branch > anyone with cvsextras (or whatever the FAS group is now called) can commit to it. > That means anyone can fsck up the kernel and break all of those users on this > EOLed release. In the proposal the updated packages go to another repository, isn't that enough? I honestly don't think that FESCo would endorse such an attitude. Unless I am missing something, the closed ACL are only accepted for security reasons, I don't think that a "don't touch my packages even though I don't maintain them" attitude is something we want to have in Fedora. My understanding of the current situation is even that Jesse (hoping I recall well) is pushing forward opening ACLs for former core packages except when there is a strong security concern, now that there are 2 groups, uberpackagers and packagers. > (And bug reports, blah blah blah.) Also removing the owners from the ACL (which is something that should be done in the future, I think) will stop them from receiving bug reports for the branch. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
