> Because this leaves things fuzzy for end users. Some packages are > updated, so why aren't all? It leaves things very ambiguous. We need > to give users a clear message that "This release is in maintenance mode. > Consider it deprecated. Please update." I don't argue against that. I think that's what should be advertized. But does it hurt if we also say that "some packages may still be updated if the maintainer is willing". > Again, fuzzy message to end users. Why do some packages get released on > these older releases, but not other packages? We need consistency. Again I don't thinwe need absolute consistency. We could say "The general case is that new packages are not released for the old releases, but it is possible if the maintainer wants to.". > > infrastructure and the guideline are kept unchanged, I am all for > > saying > > > > Support is a reasonable expectation that bug reports will get looked at, > security updates will be addressed, etc... I don't really understand your point, but I think that a maintainer should not be prevented to support any release if he wants to. -- Pat -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
