Fedora products, to upgrade rather than backport?

[Jesse Keating]

On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 16:12 -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> You can though think it does make sense to change the handling because
> it is EOL, independent of who is touching it.  EOL means end of development
> which means end of upgrades, at least to some.

Can we agree to not use the term EOL in this way?  I made a huge mistake
in starting this trend.  We really should be looking at 'EOL' as when
_we_ stop touching it.  It should be considered Maintenance Mode after
Red Hat stops touching it.  This line may blur if/when Core + Extras
gets merged into one happy 'verse of packages maintained by a
combination of external and internal folks, then the Maint Mode becomes
a timeline issue not when RH stops touching it issue.  Regardless, EOL
shouldn't be until the Fedora Project in general stops touching it.

> One question is what size of upgrades are you talking about.  There's
> a big difference in going from kernel 2.4.12 to 2.4.13 versus going
> from 2.4.12 to 2.6.10 (just made up version numbers, but you get the idea).
> Same with going from apache 1.x.5 to 1.x.6 versus going from apache
> 1.x.5 to apache 2.x.y.

True, those would be insane.

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20060515/7c96aad0/attachment.sig>