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

Re: reviving Fedora Legacy





----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralf Corsepius" <rc040203 freenet de>
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <fedora-devel-list redhat com>
Sent: 2008年10月13日 星期一 下午04时16分49秒 GMT +10:00 Brisbane
Subject: Re: reviving Fedora Legacy

On Sun, 2008-10-12 at 18:22 -0700, Bob Arendt wrote:
> Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > I'm not talking about QA.. I'm talking about verifying that the
> > volunteer maintainers are actually still in place a year+ later.  How
> > do make users aware that packages are unmaintained for 1+ years? Do
> > you plan to expire unmaintained packages so new users don't have
> > access to them?You have to have some process to verify that the
> > maintainers are there because you are explicitly stating that the life
> > of branch depends on an accurate count of the active maintainers. if
> > you don't build a process to try to verify maintainer involvement..the
> > branches could live forever because there is no pre-defined EOL.
> >
> >   
> > I really don't see how a Fedora Legacy can be maintained.
> Ask yourselves: How can EPEL be maintained?

I can answer this. :-)

I have Fedora 9 on my left hand and RHEL 5 on my right hand,literately, 
As a Red Hat employee, I urge myself to support both the latest
released versions on Fedora and RHEL.
I suspect there are many people have similar situation,
thus EPEL is required.

As for Fedora Legacy, just lack of critical mass.

Ding-Yi Chen
Software Engineer
Internationalization Group
Red Hat, Inc.


-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list redhat com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list


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