Blend Fedora Objectives (was Re: Again: EOL Policy for Fedora Extras)

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le dimanche 19 février 2006 à 09:08 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis a écrit :
> Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2006, 02:42 -0500 schrieb Warren Togami:
> > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > 
> > > And then we have the same problem that Fedora Legacy currently has taken
> > > to Fedora Extras (Legacy) -- it works, but it has a bad (or "not the
> > > best") reputation because it sucked in the beginning.
> > > 
> > > Do we want that? I would prefer a EOL call over a badly working Fedora
> > > Extras Legacy.
> > > 
> > 
> > I don't agree here.  We should at least give the community a chance to 
> > maintain the collection, and EOL or retirement only happens if the 
> > community fails on a particular distribution.  I have a feeling that FE3 
> > will continue to have users long after FE4 for various reasons for example.
> 
> I fully agree that we should give the community a chance to maintain the
> collection. But earlier in this thread I got the impression "start a
> fedora extras legacy even if it is foreseeable that it will suck and
> fail" -- I don't like that idea to much.

Well, you know even if we had the forethought to prepare this team
months ago FEL3 would have sucked. It takes time for a new team to find
its marks. We could mitigate this fact by announcing FEL3 is a beta or
something like this. The real milestone if we get the ball rolling now
is FEL4.

Even Red Hat took a few releases to find a new working model after RHL
7.3

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 199 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060219/6ba33daa/attachment.sig>