Fedora Core 3 Transferred to Fedora Legacy

[Robert Locke]

On Sat, 2006-01-28 at 06:36 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 09:07 -0500, Robert Locke wrote:
>  <snip>
> 
> c) Whether PR are processed by RH employees/Rawhide maintainers or
> others is irrelevant to users. The point that matters to users, is
> seeing a "continuous flow" of their distro, and not having to intervene
> into their system.
> 

I guess the part that I don't get is when will it end?  Today some are
asking to extend it a few months to coincide with "n+2" release date.
Then someone'll be asking that we get a little overlap to allow "n+2" to
settle out before we upgrade, maybe until "n+3test2", then someone asks
for a few months to "n+3" release.  I just don't see it ending.....  The
objective of Core was to be upgrades from N to N+1 - though I'm more
interested in re-spins to solve the installation problems not uncovered
in "test phases".... :-)  Given the objective of Core being rapid
deployment, I'm not sure Fedora is appropriate for systems that don't
need to be "intervened".....

> I.e. it all is a matter of organization, coordination and collaboration.
> One way to achieve this would be RH to silently let the "legacy team"
> take over maintenance, and continue to ship packages through Core.
> 

I'm not sure I endorse "silence".  Then we'll be accusing the project of
"secrecy"... ;-)  I believe the discussions in -devel are leaning more
towards allowing a more transparent shift via yum to the Legacy repo's.
I do agree with the need to make this "easier" for those that have not
"upgraded" release.  Leaving the packages in "Core" may just "confuse"
things.

> > But let's stop "demanding" and spend more effort "discussing" how we
> > can move forward.
> Well, this would require for the "RH-mountain" to move ;)
> 

We'll have to wait and see if the Foundation represents a real shift or
just a marketing event.... :-)

--Rob