Le samedi 29 avril 2006 à 05:17 +0200, Ralf Corsepius a écrit : > Sorry, but I beg to differ: > > IMO, > * 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]. Which is intentional on the FC side and I don't see why FE should be any better. You know perfectly well the FC EOL is not designed to allow FC(N-1) to FC(N+1). I say keep FE proper in line with FC, which includes same EOL *and* same initial availability. It's all too easy to start trailing for one release, then two, then so much no one really knows when support starts and stops Get a Legacy-style group for FE, and if they want to do long-term maintenance for years much power to them, but here you're trying to force on volunteers conditions paid contributors to Fedora (@rh, FC) already said no to. Since the EOL was never defined before, the *only* moral contract current contributors have with FE is to do something "like FC", which has very clear EOL policies (and not the one you advocate) -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
