Backporting policy

Wed Jan 7 19:30:11 UTC 2004

On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:36:27AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Backporting has been the goal since day 1 for previous RHL releases.
> FC releases is still in the air.  RH will not focus so much on
> backports for FC updates, rather they'll go the route of new
> packages. How should Legacy respond to this?

A good question. Upstream updating and guaranteeing stable API/ABIs are
contraditory.

FC1 is not dead yet, so I suggest to address these questions when FC1
is about to EOL. One should examine the then existing interest groups
and the given available options.

> As for RHL releases, backporting is absolutely the goal.  

Glad to hear that.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20040107/19d571c7/attachment.sig>