a plan for updates after end of life

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Feb 10, 2008 7:56 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> wrote:
> Once again this is the same for fedora. The usual processes (MIA,
> mailing lists, escalation to the proper commitee) would be right, at
> least until we find something better in fedora.

It's not the same... you are proposing a completely open-ended
timeframe for a branch, based on continued maintainership of a set of
"core" items.  That unlimited timeframe equates to unlimited risk.
For fedora right now, we know exactly how long a release cycle and the
timeframe sets a boundary on how long something could be maintained in
name only.  The current branches expire at a certain time whether
someone is maintaining things or not.  You are proposing to build a
branch which can only expire if people stop maintaining
things...totally different...totally.

-jef

-jef