RFC: Fedora Extras EOL Policy
Hans de Goede
j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
Sat Apr 15 07:46:31 UTC 2006
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 12:41:08 +0200 (CEST), Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Could you add your proposition to the wiki ?
> No. And please don't do it for me either. This list is for discussion. The
> Wiki is for the final wording or draft thereof. The goal of this thread is
> to collect community input.
>> It's not the same one Jesse Keating proposed. Different enough in fact I
>> would accept it, but not the wiki one.
> The basic plan is the same, with a few things not being carved into stone
> yet. The terminology is different. End-of-life means a branch is dead. A
> dead branch, which is still updated, is not dead. We should be careful
> when and how to use the term "supported". The Wiki page also uses the term
> "expectations" and moves the responsibility for legacy updates onto the
> shoulders of the Security Response team, which is still work in progress,
> too. No packager can be forced/urged to update multiple legacy branches for
> an indeterminate period of time. So, policies are needed.
As someone who _was_ involved in discussions around the Security team,
let me say that this (the wiki wording) is a _BAD_ idea, the primary
mode of operation should be that maintainers try to maintain their
packages for older releases, not that everything gets just dropped on
the shoulders of the Security Team. That said I do like the
co-maintainer idea a lot, a default mode of operations where the
solution is let the Security Team fix it will only result in no one
wanting to be part of the Security Team.
More information about the fedora-extras-list