Friday Flames - What to do with RHL7.3/9 and FC1/2

[Jesse Keating]

As we approach FC6 Test2, we should make a decision wrt RHL7.3/9 and
FC1/2.  We've been supporting these releases for a while now, and
they've grown pretty long in the tooth, even by Legacy standards.  Our
lifetime policy would dictate that FC1 should be gone already, and FC2
would go when we pick up FC4, so that we're only supporting FC3 and FC4.
The RHL releases are a different matter.

RHL we agreed to support for a long period of time, however that time
may be up.  Personally I would really like to see these go, as they take
up a lot of our time when trying to push updates, we get very little
help, and updates are increasingly more difficult to do.  I would like
to hear discussion on if we should continue supporting it, how we can
make it easier to support, and a reasonable endpoint to the support, an
exit strategy.

Another issue to consider is our impending merger into the Fedora
Infrastructure.  This involves using the build machines used for Extras
(with our own plague master), a CVS system for us to make commits to for
packages, and to store our tools, and a publishing tool for signing
packages, staging for websync, sending announcement emails, and closing
bugs.  This migration I am focusing on supporting FC3+, with the idea
that the migration will complete or become usable near the time of
FC6Test2.  Including support for FC1/2 and especially RHL7.3/9 would
greatly increase the complexity of the tools and systems we need to get
in place within the Fedora infrastructure.  My goal is to make these
tools and things as easy to use as possible, to attract new contributors
to our project.  I also want to decrease the overhead involved in
contributing to it, and lowering the number of releases an updater has
to worry about would help a lot there too.

Whatever we decide wrt RHL7.3/9 and FC1/2, if we decide to continue the
support, that continuation would have to be on our existing
infrastructure.

You have my reasons for removing support and a bit of our roadmap for
where the project is going.  Given that this is a community project,
lets discuss it as a community and come up with some reasonable
decisions.

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20060609/9a510ef6/attachment.sig>