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

Re: Feature proposal: Extended Life Cycle Support

On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 12:18:51AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>Josh Boyer wrote:
>> Without a concrete group of people large enough to make this wory saying
>> that they are signing up to do that work, I don't have high hopes for this
>> succeeding in the long run.
>We'd just need some minimal infrastructure effort, one person willing to do 
>the pushes (like you're doing for the supported releases) and everything 
>else would be "as is", if somebody wants something fixed, they'll have to 
>push the fix, if nobody cares, it won't be fixed. It isn't supported after 
>all. And no QA, if it breaks, you get to keep the pieces. Again, it's 
>unsupported, that means what it means. I still think it's better than not 
>getting any security fixes at all.

Is there a reason any of that can't be done as a secondary arch-like effort?

I've already pointed out why it's painful to keep EOL releases around.  You
didn't really address those, and you seemed to have grouped them into
"minimal infrastructure effort".  I didn't touch on package signing earlier,
but that is another potential hurdle.

Let me put is this way:

None of the items I have listed are show-stoppers or insurmountable.  However,
unless someone comes forward with _concrete_ proposals on how to approach them
and actual _people_ willing to work on it, they won't change.  I don't think
that is an undue burden to having this approved by a governing committee,
whether it be FESCo or the Board.

It's as simple as that.  I think Jeroen understands that, and he seems to
really want constructive criticism on the proposal.  So I'll be happy to wait
and see what comes of this.


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