Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >Simon Lukasik <isimluk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Currently, each Fedora release is kept alive for 13(+/-) months. >There >> were dozens of threads about shortening or prolonging period -- but I >am >> not sure if something like the following has been ever discussed: > >> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==1 -- is alive for 7 months. >> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==2 -- is alive for 7 months. >> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==0 -- is alive for 19 months. > >> Additionally, maintainers might be encouraged to push their system >wide >> changes into N%3==1. As well as they might be encouraged to make the >> Fedora N%3==0 their best bread. > >Wouldn't that just encourage 99% of average users to ignore the >short-lived releases? It would sure be a damn tempting approach for >me. >(Personally, all I want out of Fedora is a stable platform to get my >work done on, and the less often I have to reinstall, the better.) 99% is an overestimation. Personally I would prefer to update every 6 months just to have all the latest stuff, but if I support an organization with many Fedora installations I would choose the N%3==0 release, which would provide me only security updates after 7 months. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
