Security Response Team / EOL

[Jesse Keating]

On Sat, 2006-04-29 at 05:17 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> * wanting to discontinue FC(N-1) at FC(N+1)test2 is a fault, because
> it
> doesn't provide a sufficient overlap to FC(N+1), for users wanting to
> upgrade from FC(N-1) to FC(N+1) [e.g. FC3->FC5].

/me tries to wrap his head around what you're saying....

We're not dropping 3.  When 4 comes to Legacy, we'll drop 1 and 2, leave
3 and 4.  When 5 comes into legacy, we'll drop 3, keep 4 and 5.

> * disabling maintainers from providing bugfixes for FE < N-1 by
> shutting
> down the build system would be a fault.

That would be N - 2.

> I.e. IMO, NOW (FC5+xxx weeks) is the time to officially announce FC3
> into "bug-fix-only maintenance" but to keep the buildsystem for FE3 up
> for quite some time. When to shut this down, is a different question
> (c.f. Security Team thread).
> 

Changing when a Fedora release goes into Maint mode is a discussion for
the Fedora board and such.  I don't see this as a good idea.  Making
extras follow a different time line is also not that great of an idea
IMHO.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060429/1999165e/attachment.sig>