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

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 09:08:10 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> 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.

It's quite a bit different compared with Fedora Legacy as it's the
community already which does [most of] the packaging in Fedora Extras.
For FL the start was like "we [Red Hat] stop here, you may continue with
these 1600+ packages, using your own infrastructure, your own guidelines,
your own resources". At FE, it _could_ be a quickstart for every
interested [additional] contributor, who has not signed up before.
Essential infrastructure is available. Plus the existing FE packagers, who
volunteer to do maintenance for legacy releases. There are only a few
difficulties like "how to share bugzilla component ownership among
multiple people?" (where for the short term, Cc should suffice) and
"whether version upgrades will be done with upgrade paths in mind".