On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:39:12PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:33:41 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > My proposal was clear: start the project when somebody has volunteered > > for each of the packages that are in @code and @base (and maybe other > > comps groups, I don't remember exactly). And keep a page with the > > packages maintained such as not to give wrong expectations. > > Be careful with a project based on promises. Somebody might volunteer to > maintain a package, but leave the project already prior to the first > important security-fix due to lack of time or because of more important > obligations. Learn from Fedora Legacy's fate. Not enough commitment from > the target group. Too much bureaucracy for the few people who prepared > updates [= a slow review process in bugzilla even for small patches copied > from RHEL, lack of trust, all contributors had to wait for reviews, > bottle-necks in the build'n'release process]. With every week a security > update had to wait somewhere in a review ticket, some more people > (including contributors) left the target group. My proposal has always been to use the exact same procedures than in fedora, so nothing like in fedora legacy. -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
