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

Re: Feature proposal: Extended Life Cycle Support

On 07/06/2009 09:19 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen (kanarip kanarip com) said:
These two are my big concerns - doing this badly is worse than not
doing it, IMO. When it comes to user's security, I don't want to give
promises we can't keep, or leave them in a bind.
This has been addressed in another response to the quoted message from

OK. When you state in the feature page:

"Note that the following items may only apply to those that opt-in on ELC

that implies that it would not apply to every package. Or are you referring
to 'users who opt-in to use ELC'?

Between packages and maintainers, only maintainers are in a position to opt-in.

Also, just going back to original first principles:


"Fedora is not interested in having a slow rate of change, but rather to
innovative. We do not offer a long-term release cycle because it diverts
attention away from innovation."

Long term support, in general, goes against the directly objectives of
project. If it's felt that extending the life cycle a *specific,
amount* would be of more benefit to the project, that's probably a board
not a FESCo issue.

I've heard before it does not feel like a Feature. I guess it'll be up to
FESCo to decide on whether or not to make a decision on this, or to relay
the issue to the Board?

Probably, yes. But this is why I think the specific amount of extension
is a good idea to state - it makes the proposal more actionable.

And it is proposed, it's just not everywhere in the text:


-- Jeroen

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