On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 05:17 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > * wanting to discontinue FC(N-1) at FC(N+1)test2 is a fault, because > it > doesn't provide a sufficient overlap to FC(N+1), for users wanting to > upgrade from FC(N-1) to FC(N+1) [e.g. FC3->FC5]. /me tries to wrap his head around what you're saying.... We're not dropping 3. When 4 comes to Legacy, we'll drop 1 and 2, leave 3 and 4. When 5 comes into legacy, we'll drop 3, keep 4 and 5. > * disabling maintainers from providing bugfixes for FE < N-1 by > shutting > down the build system would be a fault. That would be N - 2. > I.e. IMO, NOW (FC5+xxx weeks) is the time to officially announce FC3 > into "bug-fix-only maintenance" but to keep the buildsystem for FE3 up > for quite some time. When to shut this down, is a different question > (c.f. Security Team thread). > Changing when a Fedora release goes into Maint mode is a discussion for the Fedora board and such. I don't see this as a good idea. Making extras follow a different time line is also not that great of an idea IMHO. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
