On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:06:59 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 15:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:11:02 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > > > > * With terms like "end-of-life", "life-cycle", "maintenance state" come > > > > promises with regard to the expectations raised by our users. It is > > > > important that we don't keep a legacy branch open just because parts of > > > > the contributor community insist on publishing updates for it, while the > > > > majority has moved on to do only the current branches. > > > > > > Why not? If a part of the community is willing to maintain a package, they > > > should be able to do it. > > > > That would be the "some do, some don't" playground. > Yes, and where is the problem? The risk of FE becoming the infamous dumping ground of poorly maintained packages. > FE is a volunteered effort, so this is inevitable, even in FC(current). It's not black and white. By more and clear policies, volunteers can be given an environment in which it possible [and easier] to contribute where help is needed. And help is needed where bugzilla response times are high, where packagers lack test machines, where packagers discontinue support for legacy branches, where orphans are created, ... > > We try to move away from Fedora Extras being a second class citizen. > > And how is this problem related to FE-EOL? See the other replies. FC has a well-defined lifespan. FE has not. Fedora Legacy is a project with objectives. Point me to the place in the Wiki where I find the FE project objectives with regard to both the active and legacy releases. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
