Bill Nottingham wrote:
Rahul Sundaram (sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said:
If we are not planning on having Fedora as a stable server, we should
not release a server variant. If we are going to do desktop and server
variants, we should put some incrementally more effort into actually
have something useful in each of these variants rather than just a
different bunch of packages and stop going back and forth on what we are
trying to do.
So, the only differentiation that's possible for a Server is the lifecycle?
I don't buy that.
There are various other ways to differentiate a server variant but
extending the life cycle is in many cases much needed. It expands the
scope of the variant being more useful than just a precursor of RHEL. I
think we should atleast seriously consider serving that need. Giving
that we already do backports, the merge of core and extras and the
critical security fixes only policy for the last six months I suggested
it does appear doable.
Rahul
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list
fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
