On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 18:22 -0700, Bob Arendt wrote:
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> I'm not talking about QA.. I'm talking about verifying that the
> volunteer maintainers are actually still in place a year+ later. How
> do make users aware that packages are unmaintained for 1+ years? Do
> you plan to expire unmaintained packages so new users don't have
> access to them?You have to have some process to verify that the
> maintainers are there because you are explicitly stating that the life
> of branch depends on an accurate count of the active maintainers. if
> you don't build a process to try to verify maintainer involvement..the
> branches could live forever because there is no pre-defined EOL.
>
>
I really don't see how a Fedora Legacy can be maintained.
Ask yourselves: How
can EPEL be maintained?
If the goal is increased stability and security patches,
The
goal would be "extended life-time" at "no guarantees/use at your own
risk".
you need to guarantee that you have
folks supporting
backpatches to the kernel, glibc, firefox, evolution, openoffice, and
several other large
and complex packages. Incorporating new security patches into old
baselines is *hard*.
Right, ... the consequence would be instability and security
risks
gradually creeping in.
This is bad, nevertheless it still would better than letting people stay
with totally discontinued/unmaintained Fedoras or with driving them away
from Fedora and redirecting them to CentOS or RHEL.
Plus Fedora would "fork" a new release every 6 months. How
many legacy
Fedora's would be retained? At some point it seems the legacy volunteer
force
would saturate and legacy Fedora's would have to start dropping off
every 6 months.
Right, ... nevertheless, such an extended life-time would provide people
more time to upgrade to a newer Fedora.
Ralf