Security Response Team / EOL

[Ed Hill]

On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 14:12 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 
> Time spent on trying to keep legacy branches alive is missing in other
> areas. I'd rather see Extras packagers track Rawhide and prepare for the
> next release of FC, so we have something to offer at the time of release
> of Test1. Version upgrades in old branches--especially those which are
> done without careful testing (like closed-eyes copy-to-branch-and-build
> updates)--increase the risk of resulting in regression, dead-end breakage
> and increased maintenance requirements. Such as but not limited to
> requiring further version upgrades in build requirements or in
> dependencies maintained by other packages (with Epoch bump or package
> withdrawal as a worst-case).

+1

Yes, there are opportunity costs and there certainly will be problems
with adding new packages and/or new revisions to old releases.  No
doubt.

IMNSHO, Fedora should be looking forward.  Declaring old versions as
_dead_ is a really _good_ thing!  At some point we should let go and
concentrate our limited time and effort on the present and future
releases.

Ed

-- 
Edward H. Hill III, PhD
office:  MIT Dept. of EAPS;  Rm 54-1424;  77 Massachusetts Ave.
             Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
emails:  eh3 at mit.edu                ed at eh3.com
URLs:    http://web.mit.edu/eh3/    http://eh3.com/
phone:   617-253-0098
fax:     617-253-4464