Feature proposal: Extended Life Cycle Support

Jeroen van Meeuwen kanarip at kanarip.com
Tue Jul 7 01:22:38 UTC 2009


On 07/06/2009 09:19 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jeroen van Meeuwen (kanarip at kanarip.com) said:
>>> These two are my big concerns - doing this badly is worse than not
>>> doing it, IMO. When it comes to user's security, I don't want to give
>>> promises we can't keep, or leave them in a bind.
>> This has been addressed in another response to the quoted message from
>> Kevin.
>
> OK. When you state in the feature page:
>
> "Note that the following items may only apply to those that opt-in on ELC
> support"
>
> that implies that it would not apply to every package. Or are you referring
> to 'users who opt-in to use ELC'?
>

Between packages and maintainers, only maintainers are in a position to 
opt-in.

>>> Also, just going back to original first principles:
>>>
>>> 	http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives
>>>
>>> "Fedora is not interested in having a slow rate of change, but rather to
>> be
>>> innovative. We do not offer a long-term release cycle because it diverts
>>> attention away from innovation."
>>>
>>> Long term support, in general, goes against the directly objectives of
>> the
>>> project. If it's felt that extending the life cycle a *specific,
>>> measureable
>>> amount* would be of more benefit to the project, that's probably a board
>>> issue,
>>> not a FESCo issue.
>>>
>> I've heard before it does not feel like a Feature. I guess it'll be up to
>> FESCo to decide on whether or not to make a decision on this, or to relay
>> the issue to the Board?
>
> Probably, yes. But this is why I think the specific amount of extension
> is a good idea to state - it makes the proposal more actionable.
>

And it is proposed, it's just not everywhere in the text:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle#Notes

-- Jeroen




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list