Updates Politics Proposal

Eric Rostetter rostetter at mail.utexas.edu
Thu May 26 02:08:33 UTC 2005


Quoting David Curry <dsccable at comcast.net>:

> 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".

See the FAQ.  The very first FAQ entry ever created addresses the issue
of what we support.

> Thanks to all who have contributed to this thread.  As a result, Fedora
> Legacy policy is increasingly clear.

Doesn't seem to be from what you say below.
 
> Before gravitating elsewhere, though, I will offer an opinion.  Unless
> there is a restrictive covenent in Red Hat's support of Fedora Legacy

There is no link between Red Hat and FL, and we have no convenent with them.
This policy is purely a FL policy.

> that limits updates to "security" and "trivial" patches, there is reason

We have no policy on "trivial" patches.  The policy is "security and
critical bug fixes."  I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

> to consider broadening "updates policy" somewhat beyond security only.

It already covers critical bug fixes.

> 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.

The Fedora Legacy updates policy was set by the Fedora Legacy community,
so I'm not sure what you are trying to imply.

-- 
Eric Rostetter




More information about the fedora-legacy-list mailing list