On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 15:53 -0400, Tres Seaver wrote: > -1 to preferring upgrades. FL is about 'stability', which is an > explicit non-goal for FC. Except in cases where a backport is more > likely to create instability than an upgrade, we should prefer > backporting. >
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. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-legacy-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
