Backporting policy

[Jesse Keating]

On Thursday 08 January 2004 16:00, Warren Togami wrote:
> I think we should also consider upgrading in cases where all of the
> following conditions are met:
> 1) Absolutely zero cases where API changes would effect any
> distribution OR 3rd party software, because the updated package is a
> leaf node on the dependency tree.  I suspect screen may be another
> leaf node. 2) Where having a common %{version} across multiple
> distributions would make it easier to maintain security updates,
> because patches need not be ported and tested multiple times.
> 3) Only by consensus of the list membership.
>
> Thoughts?

I think this fits perfectly.  I'm willing to set this forth as a policy, 
which reminds me.  On our website, under participate, we need a section 
for current policies, this being one of them, the package naming being 
another, etc...

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy)
Mondo DevTeam           (www.mondorescue.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
 
Was I helpful?  Let others know:
 http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20040108/829923b7/attachment.sig>