Feature proposal: Extended Life Cycle Support
jwboyer at gmail.com
Tue Jul 7 00:30:20 UTC 2009
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 12:18:51AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>Josh Boyer wrote:
>> Without a concrete group of people large enough to make this wory saying
>> that they are signing up to do that work, I don't have high hopes for this
>> succeeding in the long run.
>We'd just need some minimal infrastructure effort, one person willing to do
>the pushes (like you're doing for the supported releases) and everything
>else would be "as is", if somebody wants something fixed, they'll have to
>push the fix, if nobody cares, it won't be fixed. It isn't supported after
>all. And no QA, if it breaks, you get to keep the pieces. Again, it's
>unsupported, that means what it means. I still think it's better than not
>getting any security fixes at all.
Is there a reason any of that can't be done as a secondary arch-like effort?
I've already pointed out why it's painful to keep EOL releases around. You
didn't really address those, and you seemed to have grouped them into
"minimal infrastructure effort". I didn't touch on package signing earlier,
but that is another potential hurdle.
Let me put is this way:
None of the items I have listed are show-stoppers or insurmountable. However,
unless someone comes forward with _concrete_ proposals on how to approach them
and actual _people_ willing to work on it, they won't change. I don't think
that is an undue burden to having this approved by a governing committee,
whether it be FESCo or the Board.
It's as simple as that. I think Jeroen understands that, and he seems to
really want constructive criticism on the proposal. So I'll be happy to wait
and see what comes of this.
More information about the devel