Re: Fedora products, to upgrade rather than backport?

["Stephen John Smoogen" <smooge gmail com>]

On 5/15/06, Eric Rostetter <rostetter mail utexas edu> wrote:
> Quoting Jesse Keating <jkeating j2solutions net>:
>
> > Sure, for RHL it is about stability.  But with FC it was more about
> > extending the lifespan.  And to me, it really doesn't make sense to
> > change the way in which the Fedora Project treats a release just because
> > a different set of folks are touching it.

> > I'm trying to establish a scenario where the Fedora Project as a whole
> > has a certain lifespan for a Fedora (core+extras) release.  An end user
> > really shouldn't care how the updates are generated, just that they are
> > published and announced in the same spaces, and that the content of said
> > updates.
>
> As long as they don't break more than they fix...

I think the problem with defining this is that the QA resources are
even more limited than the developer resources. So a lot of problems
do not get seen because we have a 3 'worksforme' and no "For Cthulhu's
sake, don't push this"


--
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator