a plan for updates after end of life

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Feb 10, 2008 10:31 AM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> wrote:
> Although it is different, I can't see how it is different with regard
> with control over bad maintainers. And I can't see why the processes
> right for Fedora are not right here. If you have an idea how to solve
> that issue in fedora, submit it to FESCo and it will certainly work in
> UAEL too.


I'm not trying to control individuals.. I'm trying to get a realistic
conditions for any branch built under this proposal to every actually
die.  Maintainership in name happens, it happens if Fedora right now
and it will happen under your proposal. I'm not denying it.  The
difference is, the timelines we have right now are not held hostage by
this sort of crap.  Fedora release branches expire whether maintainers
do the work or not.  I will not support a proposal which lets a branch
continue until the heat death of the universe( which could be next
year based on my local ambient temperature measurements) simply
because someone's named is assigned to a package.  If you are going to
have an open ended branch cycle, then you need to propose more
specific metrics on effort performed versus effort needed to keep the
branch healthy and open.  Just a name next to a package, isn't good
enough as a metric to keep a branch open.

-jef