On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 14:12 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> Time spent on trying to keep legacy branches alive is missing in other
> areas. I'd rather see Extras packagers track Rawhide and prepare for the
> next release of FC, so we have something to offer at the time of release
> of Test1. Version upgrades in old branches--especially those which are
> done without careful testing (like closed-eyes copy-to-branch-and-build
> updates)--increase the risk of resulting in regression, dead-end breakage
> and increased maintenance requirements. Such as but not limited to
> requiring further version upgrades in build requirements or in
> dependencies maintained by other packages (with Epoch bump or package
> withdrawal as a worst-case).
+1
Yes, there are opportunity costs and there certainly will be problems
with adding new packages and/or new revisions to old releases. No
doubt.
IMNSHO, Fedora should be looking forward. Declaring old versions as
_dead_ is a really _good_ thing! At some point we should let go and
concentrate our limited time and effort on the present and future
releases.
Ed
--
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office: MIT Dept. of EAPS; Rm 54-1424; 77 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails: eh3@xxxxxxx ed@xxxxxxx
URLs: http://web.mit.edu/eh3/ http://eh3.com/
phone: 617-253-0098
fax: 617-253-4464
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
