Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy

See my blog regarding the future of Legacy as a project. 
Please remember 
these are just proposals and not final solutions.  A wiki
page will follow 
soon.

http://j
keating.livejournal.com/#entry_34659

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-
list

Quoting Jesse Keating <jkeatingredhat.com>:

> See my blog regarding the future of Legacy as a
project.  Please remember
> these are just proposals and not final solutions.  A
wiki page will follow
> soon.

First I would like to say to those who say Fedora Legacy has
failed, that
it _did_ work (i.e. didn't fail) for the most critical time
period and the
most critical OS version (RHL 7-9, FC1).  If it has failed,
or is failing,
it must not be forgotten that before it failed it worked
exceedingly well.

Second, I'm fairly comfortable with saying that if FC goes
to a 13 month
support cycle, FL is basically not needed anymore.  IMHO,
people can upgrade
once a year when presented with a known/documented release
cycle, and known
documented alternatives.

Now, I don't know that FC will change, or if FL is needed
any more even
if FC doesn't change.  But I do know that FL saved my life
by being there
when I needed it, and while I don't really need it any more
I'm forever
grateful to it for being there when I did need it.

-- 
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin

Go Longhorns!

--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-
list

On Tuesday 14 November 2006 23:06, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> First I would like to say to those who say Fedora
Legacy has failed, that
> it _did_ work (i.e. didn't fail) for the most critical
time period and the
> most critical OS version (RHL 7-9, FC1).  If it has
failed, or is failing,
> it must not be forgotten that before it failed it
worked exceedingly well.

YES!  I forgot to mention this in my blog, but when we were
doing the RHL 
updates, there was a LOT of interest and a lot of community
participation, 
and the project worked pretty darn well.  I think it became
evident by the 
dramatic drop in participation that there just wasn't the
interest we thought 
there would be in long term Fedora releases.  This is why I
think its OK in 
slightly extending the 'official' lifespan and bringing
Legacy in to help 
with that aspect.

Thank you for your feedback Eric, you've forever kept us
honest!  (:

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-
list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Jesse Keating wrote:
> See my blog regarding the future of Legacy as a
project.  Please remember
> these are just proposals and not final solutions.  A
wiki page will follow
> soon.
>
> http://j
keating.livejournal.com/#entry_34659
>
I hope this doesn't mean Legacy is going away for good.

I may have some critical things to say about participation;
but, I
still believe the community of participators can support a
6-12 month
window with the FC releases fall aside.  This will give
those who
choose to wait for a few months before upgrading the chance
to keep
up-to-date with security fixes while they wait.

- -James
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

 
iD8DBQFFWxr+kNLDmnu1kSkRAuCoAJ94wq8mwcSaUorE92KkFk2QDqPDvgCf
TxH4
pnYlEDi+uZoFFI97hPTkn8o=
=wnDn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net

--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-
list

On Wednesday 15 November 2006 08:49, James Kosin wrote:
> I may have some critical things to say about
participation; but, I
> still believe the community of participators can
support a 6-12 month
> window with the FC releases fall aside.  This will give
those who
> choose to wait for a few months before upgrading the
chance to keep
> up-to-date with security fixes while they wait.

The Fedora project would be offering 13~ months of updates
(security only for 
the last part), which gives you the opportunity to go from
say Fedora 7 to 
Fedora 9 + 1 month.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-
list

On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:06:57PM -0600, Eric Rostetter
wrote:
> First I would like to say to those who say Fedora
Legacy has failed, that
> it _did_ work (i.e. didn't fail) for the most critical
time period and the
> most critical OS version (RHL 7-9, FC1).  If it has
failed, or is failing,
> it must not be forgotten that before it failed it
worked exceedingly well.

Or at least moderately well. Let's not over-sell. 

> Second, I'm fairly comfortable with saying that if FC
goes to a 13 month
> support cycle, FL is basically not needed anymore. 
IMHO, people can upgrade
> once a year when presented with a known/documented
release cycle, and known
> documented alternatives.

One month of annual overlap is still a bit short.


-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdmmattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-
list

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> The Fedora project would be offering 13~ months of
updates
> (security only for the last part), which gives you the
opportunity
> to go from say Fedora 7 to Fedora 9 + 1 month.
>

I though Fedora project would be keeping only one previous
version, so
by FC9, FC7 would have been taboo to even mention.  And with
the quick
pace of releases,  13 months would be about FC13 or 14 by
then.

Just kidding....

Hmmm.....   maybe a better upgrade path would be in order. 
Allowing
users to keep their configuration; with minor changes and
upgrade the
units to FC6->FC7->FC8 etc.  without any troubles.

I'll have to give that a try someday.

- -James
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

 
iD8DBQFFWyfxkNLDmnu1kSkRAvk7AJ0SotwaV8aSMNlS+kg1AsHqr8geigCe
Pq4e
dVUQir8Q6T2Z6xyrSmvUhtk=
=Ixre
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net

--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-
list

On Wednesday 15 November 2006 09:45, James Kosin wrote:
> Hmmm.....   maybe a better upgrade path would be in
order.  Allowing
> users to keep their configuration; with minor changes
and upgrade the
> units to FC6->FC7->FC8 etc.  without any
troubles.
>
> I'll have to give that a try someday.

We're also committing to testing FC6 -> FC8 in one jump.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-
list

On Wednesday 15 November 2006 09:23, Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:06:57PM -0600, Eric Rostetter
wrote:
>> First I would like to say to those who say Fedora
Legacy has failed,
>> that it _did_ work (i.e. didn't fail) for the most
critical time
>> period and the most critical OS version (RHL 7-9,
FC1).  If it has
>> failed, or is failing, it must not be forgotten
that before it failed
>> it worked exceedingly well.
>
>Or at least moderately well. Let's not over-sell. 
>
>> Second, I'm fairly comfortable with saying that if
FC goes to a 13
>> month support cycle, FL is basically not needed
anymore.  IMHO, people
>> can upgrade once a year when presented with a
known/documented release
>> cycle, and known documented alternatives.
>
>One month of annual overlap is still a bit short.

I can't help but agree that its too short. 3 or 6 would be
much more 
realistic from the users viewpoint, who has his setup all
fine tuned and 
doesn't want to go thru that on an annual basis.  There are
other things 
to life you know.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that
order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the
above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights
reserved.

--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-
list

On Wednesday 15 November 2006 09:54, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I can't help but agree that its too short. 3 or 6 would
be much more
> realistic from the users viewpoint, who has his setup
all fine tuned and
> doesn't want to go thru that on an annual basis.  There
are other things
> to life you know.

So why don't you use CentOS which as a annual or every other
year release?

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-
list