On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 09:06:10 -0500 (CDT), Benjamin J. Weiss <benjamin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Considering all of the problems that FC 2 has been having, I wonder if > Redhat would consider changing the published schedule so that a version of > FC wouldn't EOL until the second-following version was released. IOW, FC > 1 shouldn't EOL until FC 3 is released, and FC 2 shouldn't EOL until FC 4 > is released. That might give folks more peace of mind, that they aren't > forced to upgrade to a buggy release like FC 2. I highly doubt such a change in stated policy is going to be considered until after we actually see ...in practice...if fc1 eol is a big problem...changing policy now sets a very bad precedent. And if fc3 turns out to disappoint some people...shall we extend fc1 eol again...and again when fc4 disppoints some people...and again when fc5 disappoints. Legacy is there for a reason, it does provide a choice when fc1 eol's. People might not feel its a choice that bests suits them, but i would muse that a majority of those people won't be satified unless rhl is resurrected from the dead. My understanding of the eol policy is a trade-off in developer time. The more releases developers have to maintain updates for...the less time they actually have to do new development. The eol policy as stated is a statement of development manpower constraints. Extending eols will require more manpower..community manpower. Legacy is there right now, as a place where that community manpower can be applied to extend eol. Don't expect any worthwhile hope of changing the Core eol policy until there significant evidence that community is there to provide the extra labor. How well legacy works out with fc1 eol will be a barometer of the community will to be invovled. -jef
