[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: lwn article on the death of Fedora Legacy

On Friday 20 October 2006 10:48, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> IMHO, Fedora Legacy was started for RHL, not FC, and the name is shouldn't
> dictate policy, the original purpose should dictate policy.

Actually no.  Fedora Legacy came from when Fedora was created.  Fedora 
Alternatives and Extras were other proposed projects.  I picked up Legacy 
because I wanted to provide Fedora to my customers, and provide them a 
slightly longer life span.  I was persuaded to do updates for RHL too, which 
I really think was a mistake.

> > My thoughts too.  I keep trying to be nice to these people, and they
> > never help out.  So screw 'em.  </personal opinion>
> Yeah, and when offers of help are met with resistence, people do tend to
> not help out.  When people say stuff like "So screw 'em" then people tend
> to not help out.

Where we need help is testing packages, reporting and vetting issues (not 
just 'hey this CVE was filed, does it effect us?'  Actually LOOK at the 
package and package sources to see, perhaps provide a patch?  Where are you 
meeting resistance doing this kind of work?

> >> I really, really think the bugzilla process should be moved to be more
> >> "normal", too -- one bug # per release, even if the issue is identical
> >> in FC3 and FC4. (That's why there's the "clone bug" bugzilla feature.)
> >
> > Absolutely.  This works much better when the update tool can automanage
> > bugs, so that each gets closed when the update goes out, and we're not so
> > tied to every release must be fixed for the bug to be closed.  (note,
> > there can be a top level "tracker" but for the CVE itself, and individual
> > bugs are cloned for each vuln Fedora release)
> So, hey, here's an idea: Let's do that!  What's the hold up?

Getting software in place.  Time.  Energy.

> >> > C) Move to Core style updates process.  Spin a possible update, toss
> >> > it in -testing.  If nobody says boo after a period of time, release
> >> > the darn thing.  If somebody finds it to be broken, fix it and
> >> > resubmit.
> >>
> >> Yes. Better this than nothing.
> No problem for FC releases.  Since there is only 2 months left on RHL,
> there isn't much of a problem there either (in particular if you set
> the "period of time" to be a month or one week before the EOL date, which
> ever comes first.
> >> Yes. How much work will this convincing take? Does he accept bribes?
> >
> > I think he does.  A lot of it is a time issue.
> Again, could he use help with this?  If so, what kind of help?
> Even gentle encouragement?  Or money?  Or coding support?  Or documentation
> support?  Or???

I don't know.  Email him.  Find out.  He's on the fedora infrastructure team 
which has this listed as one of the projects.  

Don't wait on me to make it happen.

Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

Attachment: pgpaM7qdytr8c.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]