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

Re: a plan for updates after end of life

On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 06:49:19PM -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> > > 1) Do packages get updated to the latest or are stuck with back patches?
> > It is the maintainer decision. The rule of thumb is that maintainers
> > should be conservative, but don't hesitate to update if backports are
> > too complicated. Or, as I say in the proposal, between fedora and
> > RHEL/Centos/EPEL.
> You need to describe said user base more precisely, and find out what their
> real needs are.

What user base are you talking about? I am talking about maintainers
willing to do some work.

> Where do said volunteers come from, if people with the required skill sets
> aren't available for Fedora right now?

What are you basing this on? In the course of my proposal finding if
there was enough volunteers (we cannot judge their skills, though) was
an objective. Of course maintainers can lie, but I trust them not to.

> > If a mandatory package isn't maintained for 7 days the whole branch is
> > discontinued.
> Ouch! So I find out out of the blue that the branch is dead?!

Yes. If there is not enough people to do the work anymore. 

> > > 4) Do you have a pool of volunteers who are doing this?
> > No. But there must be at least one volunteer for each of the mandatory
> > package before the branch is said to be part of the project.
> Sounds sensible. Make that one maintainer and a comaintainer for each core
> package?

What is a core package? You mean a package from the minimal set? A
maintainer is enough. Of course more is better.

Anyway this proposal is retired.


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