Fedora Legacy Launch Plan (draft 2)

[Warren Togami]

Chuck Wolber wrote:
> 
>>I believe we can sanely and easily choose naming on a case-by-case
>>basis.  We only need to follow precedent.  This is not a problem.
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the precedent be the existing rh7.3, rh8.0, rh9 tags?

No, that is not the RH precedent.  That is similar to how the 3rd party 
repositories and fedora.us have operated.

> 
>>We disagree about having ".legacy" at the end.  I personally don't see a
>>problem in having a longer filename since it *should* be handled
>>automatically by tools.  I believe we should have it for two reasons:
>>
>>1) Clear separation between the official RH/FC updates and Legacy updates.
> 
> 
> Ok, I can understand that. But instead of legacy, why not flrh7.3, 
> flrh8.0, flrh9?

This is just as ugly as rhfc-type names.  Yuck.

>>2) Repository tags are encouraged for all non-FC and non-FE repositories.
> 
> 
> Yup
> 
> 
> 
>>I suppose we could have a shorter abbreviation of legacy, but I can't
>>think of anything that looks good.
> 
> 
> Shorter is good, but I'm still lobbying heavily for some semblance of 
> which RH OS the RPM was meant for in the filename.
> 

I think I'm in agreement, but I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here.

Warren