Security Response Team / EOL

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le samedi 29 avril 2006 à 05:17 +0200, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :

> Sorry, but I beg to differ:
> 
> IMO,
> * wanting to discontinue FC(N-1) at FC(N+1)test2 is a fault, because it
> doesn't provide a sufficient overlap to FC(N+1), for users wanting to
> upgrade from FC(N-1) to FC(N+1) [e.g. FC3->FC5].

Which is intentional on the FC side and I don't see why FE should be any
better. You know perfectly well the FC EOL is not designed to allow
FC(N-1) to FC(N+1).

I say keep FE proper in line with FC, which includes same EOL *and* same
initial availability. It's all too easy to start trailing for one
release, then two, then so much no one really knows when support starts
and stops

Get a Legacy-style group for FE, and if they want to do long-term
maintenance for years much power to them, but here you're trying to
force on volunteers conditions paid contributors to Fedora (@rh, FC)
already said no to.

Since the EOL was never defined before, the *only* moral contract
current contributors have with FE is to do something "like FC", which
has very clear EOL policies (and not the one you advocate)

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060429/53e63f31/attachment.sig>