Updates Politics Proposal

[David Curry]

Matthew Miller wrote:

>On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 04:01:00PM -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>  
>
>>But it is an unfounded frustration, as your understanding of the policy is
>>incorrect.
>>    
>>
>
>To be fair, it's basically what I've been pretty regularly saying the policy
>is. So some of the blame there rests with me. As I see it, open the door to
>"critical" non-security bugs is a problem, because it puts us in the
>situation of having to decide what's critical and what's not -- a more
>subjective determination than "is this a security flaw".
>
>  
>
Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread.  As a result, Fedora 
Legacy policy is increasingly clear.  (It is also clear that my use of 
fedora core 2 and participation in Fedora Legacy will likely be 
relatively short lived. )

Before gravitating elsewhere, though, I will offer an opinion.  Unless 
there is a restrictive covenent in Red Hat's support of Fedora Legacy 
that limits updates to "security" and "trivial" patches, there is reason 
to consider broadening "updates policy" somewhat beyond security only.  
Fedora Legacy updates policy and willingness of the community to support 
Fedora Legacy are not independent of one another.   However the issue is 
resolved I wish the group well.