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

Re: Follow-up on Extended Life Cycle

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Tim Burke wrote:

Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 21:18 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:

It has
been something like 4 years since the Fedora Legacy project ended, and
if you have a sizable labor pool you can eliminate one of the main
reasons that happened.

Note, to maintain Critical Security updates, which is essentially what
RHEL does once a RHEL release reaches it's maintenance mode, RH Security
team estimates that a single full time person can handle the work load.
This is a sizable pool when compared to what Fedora Legacy worked with,
and Legacy's target was much more broad, and the infrastructure much
less helpful.

I'm guessing that this 1 fulltime person in a security response team role is to track, monitor, and coordinate the issues that need to be addressed. Which in many cases is different from the devel, releng and test aspects - necessitating much more than 1 fulltime person's worth of work to pull off the broader initiative. Right?

In the world of RHEL, this would certainly be true -- but in the world of Fedora?

What QA/releng work is required to push updates into Fedora currently, after the initial distro has been pushed out? I'm pretty sure it's not much; we just use bodhi to coordinate +1s to packages in the updates testing repo, and that's about the extent of it. This process would not change.


Computer Science professors should be teaching open source.
Help make it happen.   Visit http://teachingopensource.org.

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