Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 06:55:08AM +0800, John Summerfied wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> >On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 15:34, John Summerfied wrote:
> >
> >>The current policy of retiring an FC release immediately _before_ the
> >>release of the second subsequent release seems completely bizarre to me.
> >
> >It is really in no one's best interest to have developers wasting
> >their time backporting fixes and updates into an old distribution.
>
> If Rahul is right there aren't any, so the workload won't be great. If
> he's wrong (as I expect) there won't be many, and still thr workload's
> not great.
Even if you're not pushing out updates, the fact that it's still supported means
you still need to do bugzilla triage, which takes lots of time.
Someone's still going to be doing that. Can the transition to FL be
smoothed over?
My concern is that FC3 (maybe we're actually too late for FC3, but it's
a convenient label) be supported until FC5 is released and supported so
that users who want to upgrade have a smooth upgrade path directly to FC5.
I actually do not care _how_ its done, except that from the users'
perspective it should "just happen."
I'm not entirely convinced that the suggestions to update the yum
package are entirely flawless[1], but so far as I can see it will work
for most people. The prospects of someone at FP getting the change right
are enormously better than all of us users doing so.
Reading bugzillamail takes up the bulk of my time, as opposed to actually
writing/fixing any code.
1. Some of us unofficially mirror the updates, but I'm happy to live
with the consequences of my actions should I do that:-)
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
do not reply off-list
