On 5/15/06, Eric Rostetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quoting Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sure, for RHL it is about stability. But with FC it was more about
> extending the lifespan. And to me, it really doesn't make sense to
> change the way in which the Fedora Project treats a release just because
> a different set of folks are touching it.
> I'm trying to establish a scenario where the Fedora Project as a whole
> has a certain lifespan for a Fedora (core+extras) release. An end user
> really shouldn't care how the updates are generated, just that they are
> published and announced in the same spaces, and that the content of said
> updates.
As long as they don't break more than they fix...
I think the problem with defining this is that the QA resources are
even more limited than the developer resources. So a lot of problems
do not get seen because we have a 3 'worksforme' and no "For Cthulhu's
sake, don't push this"
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list