FL update policy [Re: just one VERIFY to be fully published]

[Pekka Savola]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
>> However, the last paragraph could be read so that when Fedora Core 4
>> is released ("the current release"), FL will ensure that both FC3 and
>> FC2 are still supported (but not necessarily FC1).
>>
>
> Si in other words, Fedora Legacy will never maintain more than one
> unsupported Fedora Core version? It seems to me that prolonging the
> usefulness of a release by only six months isn't very long and, IMO, a
> waste of time.

Well, it allows to jump through one version with loose time at 
each end (FC1 -> FC3), and if that's extended slightly, even two 
versions (FC1 -> FC4).  The latter seems pretty good already..

>>   2) If the 1st paragraph is correct, do we have resources to do that
>> kind of continued maintenance?  Unfortunately, at the momemnt, I'm
>> rather skeptical...
>
> We don't really have the resources to maintain any release right now.
> Most of the work is done by me, you and Dominic. FL needs more
> contributors if it wants to survive, that's for sure.

Unfortunately, I fear that's correct -- at least with the current 
update policies.  There seems to be no way to get VERIFY testers for 
non-frequently used packages (e.g., squid) on any platform, much less 
ALL the platforms.

Luckily enough, there _are_ maybe half a dozen people who do help 
occasionally, but it's probably not systematic enough.  I think 
creating packages/PUBLISH part would be doable, but the current 
approach for VERIFY does not cut it.

Either people will have to wake up, or we'll have to start pushing out 
stuff with less QA.  Two possibilities that spring to mind:
  - if the packages have two PUBLISH votes, just require one VERIFY for 
any architecture.  The rest will get forward without any VERIFY votes 
unless someone jumps up within (say) a week.
  - if the packages have one PUBLISH vote, the same as above except 
either wait for (say) 2 weeks or wait indefinitely.

Does anyone know how other community-driven projects, like Debian, 
handle the QA for pending security updates?  We shouldn't be requiring 
more of ourselves than they do.

>> At most, we should provide FC1 support until a month or two after FC4
>> is released. That'd probably allow the folks to migrate from FC1 to
>> FC4.  One FC release at the time.
>>
>> Unless, of course, we drop RHL73 and RHL9.  I wouldn't want that at
>> least; that's my main (only) interest in Fedora Legacy at the moment.
>
> My only personal interest in FL is FC1 support. I would really like to
> see some download statistics of the different releases to see which ones
> are useful, and which ones aren't.

I doubt that would be very conclusive, due to the amount of mirroring, 
but maybe better than nothing.

Do you personally have interests for FC2 or later FC releases, or is 
it just FC1?

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings