- "when a release goes EOL open all acls to uberpackagers" -- At least initially I'd rather see this applied to a single release. (ie: target F8 to be a long term release or target F9 as a long term release rather than all releases)
- "Also it is not possible currently to report bug against these packages." -- I'm not certain but I don't think we have the ability to lock down bugzilla like this.
- "especially if some work has to be done from the infrastructure team" -- releng should be included in this as well. Until a signing server is created, signing the packages will likely need either releng to help or infrastructure to create a separate sandbox for signing these packages.
--abadger1999 01:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- I still feel this is a bad idea - no guarantee (or even promise, or pledge) that anything will be fixed; the set of what may be fixed can change at any time (leading to different things being fixed at different rates, etc.)
- In any case, this speaks to 1) infrastructure 2) use of the Fedora 'brand' (including possibly the trademarks) 3) the goals of the project itself. It's a board-level issue, not a FESCo issue.
--notting 15 October 2008
- Will we continue to accept bug reports?
- How can we maintain three versions when we can't maintain two?
- When will releases close? Ever? Or is there a specific time when they will stop getting any updates and close for good?
- How does this figure into the bugzappers bug lifecycle handling? Should only security bugs get fixed in these LTS releases?
How about serious bugs? Bugs that annoy a maintainer? Any bug?
- How can you get maintainers helping when it's not advertised anywhere? How will they know? Perhaps there would be some way to indicate if a maintainer wanted to maintain their packages for old releases?
--nirik 11:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)