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

Re: RFC: Fedora Extras EOL Policy

On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 18:41 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 16:06:59 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-04-14 at 15:34 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 13:11:02 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > 
> > > > >  * With terms like "end-of-life", "life-cycle", "maintenance state" come
> > > > > promises with regard to the expectations raised by our users. It is
> > > > > important that we don't keep a legacy branch open just because parts of
> > > > > the contributor community insist on publishing updates for it, while the
> > > > > majority has moved on to do only the current branches.
> > > > 
> > > > Why not? If a part of the community is willing to maintain a package, they
> > > > should be able to do it.
> > > 
> > > That would be the "some do, some don't" playground.
> > Yes, and where is the problem?
> The risk of FE becoming the infamous dumping ground of poorly maintained
> packages.
Face it: It already partially is - Such is the situation, no reason to
complain about :-)

> > FE is a volunteered effort, so this is inevitable, even in FC(current).
> It's not black and white.

>  By more and clear policies, volunteers can be
> given an environment in which it possible [and easier] to contribute where
> help is needed. And help is needed where bugzilla response times are high,
> where packagers lack test machines, where packagers discontinue support
> for legacy branches, where orphans are created, ...
... "Tag teams"/"Task forces" .. set up a pool of volunteers to test
packages on less common machines.

> > > We try to move away from Fedora Extras being a second class citizen.
> >
> > And how is this problem related to FE-EOL?
> See the other replies. FC has a well-defined lifespan.
It's not even close to be in community control nor in FE's.

>  FE has not.
RH and FESCO have been using their powers to take arbitrary decisions,
so why don't you do it again, if you feel there is a problem?

> Fedora Legacy is a project with objectives. 
Legacy is a project of their own. They have the freedom to do what they
want, so coordination with FE is _their_ problem, it isn't mine and
actually isn't FE's.

As I've said many times before, I don't see any sense in a separate
Fedora Legacy project. To me, a "Fedora Legacy Team" within FE would be
much more useful.


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