Re: Fedora Core 4 coming . . . sunset, infrastructure issues . . . meeting?

[Tom Yates <madlists teaparty net>]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, David D. Eisenstein wrote:

> I apologize.  Family matters came up that kept me out of town at my 
> parents' house longer than I had thought I'd be (I am still there; was 
> expecting to be home on Monday), so firming up a meeting time didn't 
> happen.

well, there was a very small meeting (ie, me and jesse) yesterday, at the 
appointed time (or thereabouts); but that's hardly representative.  a 
couple of others were present but didn't chime in on the issue of EOLs.

> Having just talked on IRC to Jesse Keating and Marc Deslauriers, they 
> both indicated they would be available at 8pm EDT tomorrow evening 
> (Thursday, July 6th, 2006).  7:00pm CDT.  6pm MDT.  5pm  Pacific 
> Daylight time.  (That is also 00:00 UTC Friday, July 7th.)

being in cambridge (the cambridge, not the other cambridge), i'm not sure 
i can stay awake after midnight.  if i'm not there,

1) i completely accept we're going to drop both RHs at some point, and 
that that point is fast approaching.

2) i wouldn't dream of speaking for jesse, but the idea of 3 months for 
RH73 and 6 months for RH9 was floated (20061001 and 20070101 
respectively).

3) if we're re-examining the question, i *beg* for six months notice for 
RH73 as well as RH9.  i honestly believe that six months is a more 
professional sort of notice period than three, when it comes to upgrading 
production boxes.

declaration of interest: i have a huge stack of RH73 boxes - some 60 of 
them - that have to be reinstalled with CentOS by the EOL date.  half of 
them i can only take down between 0200 and 0400 every other sunday - hence 
my feeling that 6 months is a reasonable notice period.  i also have a 
personal RH9 colo'ed box, but i'm going to be doing that on 20060731. 
this isn't a justification, just me coming clean about my point of view!


--

  Tom Yates  -  madhatter teaparty net  -  http://www.teaparty.net