|| ||Kevin Fenzi <kevin-AT-scrye.com> |
|| ||fedora-devel-list-AT-redhat.com |
|| ||Re: Feature proposal: Extended Life Cycle Support |
|| ||Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:37:37 -0600|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:18:51 +0200
Kevin Kofler <email@example.com> wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Fedora Legacy (the original one) failed.
> It failed because of excess bureaucracy (they didn't even trust
> Bugzilla's authentication, requiring GPG signing of all Bugzilla
> comments with impact on the procedures, and QA requirements were also
> unrealistic given the manpower).
> > The last time something like this was proposed, it generated a few
> > meetings and some discussion here and on f-a-b. I have yet to see
> > anything actually come of that.
> Patrice Dumas's proposal failed because he wasn't provided with the
> required infrastructure (and he was unable to come up with it
> himself, which I can't blame him for).
That was the time before last. The last one was in Feb by Scott
Williams. I guess it just quietly faded out.
> > Without a concrete group of people large enough to make this wory
> > saying that they are signing up to do that work, I don't have high
> > hopes for this succeeding in the long run.
> We'd just need some minimal infrastructure effort, one person willing
> to do the pushes (like you're doing for the supported releases) and
> everything else would be "as is", if somebody wants something fixed,
> they'll have to push the fix, if nobody cares, it won't be fixed. It
> isn't supported after all. And no QA, if it breaks, you get to keep
> the pieces. Again, it's unsupported, that means what it means. I
> still think it's better than not getting any security fixes at all.
I think it is worse. It causes people to have an expectation that
something will get security updates, and when it doesn't happen and
they get compromised, they will not be very happy.
fedora-devel-list mailing list
to post comments)