reviving Fedora Legacy

[Jesse Keating]

On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 18:56 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Agreed. In fact I think that we could start something even without B)
> available in packagekit, but only with a manual change in the yum config
> files. But packagekit pointing to the post-eol repo would be even
> better.

That's acceptable to me too.

> 
> > Furthermore I would want to prevent maintainers who do not wish to
> > participate in the post-EOL update world from getting bugzilla reports
> > by people using their software in EOL releases.
> 
> My proposal is to do a mass orphaning of EOLed branches, such that a
> maintainer has to actively step in. But I can't see a way to avoid bugs
> labelled against a non EOLed branch to reach the current maintainer. If
> a packager maintains a EOLed branch I also thing that it should be
> mandatory (and also logical!) to be in watchbugzilla (if the maintainer 
> agrees, of course) to do bug triaging, but for those that are orphaned
> in the EOLed branch I can't see waht to do for wrongly labelled bugs.

Right, it would be silly of me to expect you to somehow prevent people
from filing bugs to the wrong release.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20081013/b4074359/attachment.sig>