EOL planning (and observations)

[Mike McCarty]

David Eisenstein wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Pekka Savola wrote:
>>On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Axel Thimm wrote:
>>
>>>according to original planning, the following EOL dates apply:
>>>
>>>RH7.3,RH9:   as long as community wants
>>>FC1:	     until the release of FC4
>>>FC2:	     until the release of FC5

I guess this means that I should take FC2 off my machine, and put
RH9 on it. :-)


[snip]

> My observation is that we've had more people voting and participating and
> expressing interest in FC1 issues than FC2 issues.  I am one continuing to
> run FC1 and contribute.  So I am wondering -- if we need to drop a distro
> at FC5 Test 2 time, should we drop FC2, for lack of interest (and lack of
> *contributors*)?  Or do we have some kind of "silent majority" really
> needing FC2 support to continue?

Another way to interpret this is that people don't squawk until they
are threatened. I run FC2. I'm very grateful for the efforts of all
those here at FC Legacy support. But I have, so far, not posted anything
about the FC2 support or lack thereof, because so far it hasn't been
an issue. Personally, I'd like to see the support continue forever, and
I'd just keep picking up the updates as they arrive :-)

> Another observation is that supporting even FOUR distros, with the amount
> of work we have lately had going into the maintenance of these distros,
> might be biting off more than we can chew ... or at least to chew and chew
> well with current levels of package-building and QA participation.

I'd hate to see FC Legacy die because it tried to do too much. However,
IMO one thing that the Linux world has which hampers its growth is
CHURN. The FC Legacy helps alleviate this to a degree.

[snip]

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!