Feature proposal: Extended Life Cycle Support

[Jeroen van Meeuwen]

On 07/07/2009 02:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Is there a reason any of that can't be done as a secondary arch-like effort?
>

Nope. Not as far as I can see.

> I've already pointed out why it's painful to keep EOL releases around.  You
> didn't really address those, and you seemed to have grouped them into
> "minimal infrastructure effort".  I didn't touch on package signing earlier,
> but that is another potential hurdle.
>
> Let me put is this way:
>
> None of the items I have listed are show-stoppers or insurmountable.  However,
> unless someone comes forward with _concrete_ proposals on how to approach them
> and actual _people_ willing to work on it, they won't change.  I don't think
> that is an undue burden to having this approved by a governing committee,
> whether it be FESCo or the Board.
>
> It's as simple as that.  I think Jeroen understands that, and he seems to
> really want constructive criticism on the proposal.  So I'll be happy to wait
> and see what comes of this.
>

+1 to all of the above.

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip