On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:43:48AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
No, it really wouldn't. If the ACLs are open for the kernel on an older branch anyone with cvsextras (or whatever the FAS group is now called) can commit to it. That means anyone can fsck up the kernel and break all of those users on this EOLed release.
In the proposal the updated packages go to another repository, isn't that enough? I honestly don't think that FESCo would endorse such an attitude. Unless I am missing something, the closed ACL are only accepted for security reasons, I don't think that a "don't touch my packages even though I don't maintain them" attitude is something we want to have in Fedora. My understanding of the current situation is even that Jesse (hoping I recall well) is pushing forward opening ACLs for former core packages except when there is a strong security concern, now that there are 2 groups, uberpackagers and packagers.
(And bug reports, blah blah blah.)
Also removing the owners from the ACL (which is something that should be done in the future, I think) will stop them from receiving bug reports for the branch.
-- Pat