Security Response Team / EOL

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 10:48 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> 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).
Their management's politics - Not mine, and probably not in many user's
interest - I consider the current policy as not helpful, neither to RH
nor to Fedora.

Ralf