Fedora Legacy and Fedora's cvs

[Pekka Savola]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Rob Myers wrote:
> what is the larger picture?  i advocate the convergence of the
> fedora-legacy releases with the FC-1 cvs tree.  how can we achieve
> that?  would redhat be willing to grant fedora legacy members commit
> access to the EOL'd trees?  is there another way?

First, I'm not 100% sure what you're suggesting:

  1) trying to (also) integrate (back) RHL73 and RHL9 in the
     Fedora build system.

     Undoubtedly, this would make updates and QA easier because those
     with commit rights would by definition be sufficiently "trusted".

  2) for FL to FC1, work based on the latest CVS for FC1 (whether that
     has included bug fixes, software version upgrades etc. as well)

     This implies that the FL FC1 releases will have more than just
     minimal security fixes.

     On the other hand, if we make the political statement that FL
     security fixes will always be applied on top of the latest in the
     fedora core release in question -- and that may cause some
     breakage -- then it will definitely be easier than just security
     backports.

     This may or may not be reasonable, provided that we aren't going
     to produce security fixes to FC releases for so long time in any
     case -- it makes some sense to do it the easiest possible way.

I think you were referring to 2).

This doesn't matter all that much (yet), but if we don't retire FC1 
security support before we take on FC2, it would likely be easier to 
do FC1 packages based on the latest on Fedora CVS.

The biggest issue here is probably how much effort we'd be willing to 
put doing QA and handling the breakage that this approach would imply.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings