Updates Politics Proposal

[Igor Nestorović]

У sre, 25. 05. 2005. у 10:55 -0500, Philip Molter написа:
> I'm personally in favor of expanding the patch policy to fix trivial 
> bugs in addition to security bugs.  Trivial bug patches can be open to 
> discussion, of course ("I'm sorry, but this patch changes too much 
> behavior to be accepted"), but they shouldn't be outright denied simply 
> because the issue they fix isn't solely security-related.
Spot on, Philip. But, here we heard arguments from actual package
maintainers that the existing policy is sufficient. OK, so if they are
fine, who are we to complain? :)

So you say nay.

One thing though. As I understand it, the release cappability dealing
with the hardware and software is "locked" to EOL for that release. Only
security releases may step forward. But what about a new hardware that
emerged since the EOL? Say, I get a faulty piece of HW on my server, but
must I be very cautious with the replacement, because I may end with no
support for it. I can always build the custom package, but then I have
to say farewell to the legacy thingy. Or should I trash the whole system
altogether with the malfunctioned object and go fot the latest HW/SW
wizz?

As I recall, even Red Hat has occasionally granted "leaps" in versions
for even critical packages, like kernel, in their errata. What a joy
that has been for people struggling with the problems I mentioned above.
-- 
Igor Nestorović
Home Page: http://jung.ekof.bg.ac.yu
ICQ UIN: 31079000
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?????????? ????????
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20050525/f7bb60a9/attachment.sig>