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

Re: Summary from yesterdays FESCo-Meeting

> Still unsure (Comments please!): 
>  * what do we do with packages where no maintainer steps up to request
>builds? Jeremy suggest "and when we get to FC5 - 2 weeks or so, we can
>step in for things that haven't been touch if needed". Or do we remove
>them and consider them orphaned if we don't hear *anything* from the
>maintainers after a bug was opened and nothing happened for one or two
I'll get this ball rolling.  I think what might be worth doing here is
figuring out a Fedora policy about our software lifecycle.  Core has a
fairly clear policy.  Once FC5 got to test 2, FC3 went to legacy.  At
present that's a FC policy.  Should we adapt that to all things Fedora?

I think what we really need is just as clear of a policy that applies to
all of our Fedora software including Extras, Core and any projects that
might get added later.  We should keep it simple for our users so they
can easily follow it.  But we should have a very serious conversation
about it.  I know a lot of people out there don't really like FC's
release cycle.  I also think it would make it harder for the Fedora
Legacy project to take on FC and FE once a cycle changes.  But since
FC's release cycle is so quick we need to come up with something that
will work for *MOST* people involved.  This includes the users,
contributers, maintainers, developers, etc. 

We won't be able to please everyone here.  I, for one, like Ubuntu's
release cycle.  If I remember correctly it has a new release every 6
months with each release being supported for 2 years.  I'm sure not
everyone will like/agree with this release cycle but I thought I'd throw
it out there :-D


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