----- Original Message ----- > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11/06/2013 11:09 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote: > > On 11/06/2013 04:46 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> On 11/06/2013 09:57 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > >>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 15:38:10 +0100, Phil Knirsch > >>> <pknirsch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> But i do like the idea of well "Overlap" releases? Where most > >>>> of the release would stay stable in a sense of API/ABI and we > >>>> could still bring out a newer release. > >>> > >>> Since we have a system where multiple kernel types can be > >>> installed, maybe we could use that to have a latest stable > >>> kernel package and a latest long term support kernel package. > >>> This will take more kernel team resources and may have some > >>> issues if the graphics drivers devs want to take advantage of a > >>> new feature that isn't going to be back ported to stable. > >> > >> Alternately, maybe this is one of the cases where we leave it to > >> RHEL/CentOS to cover. For really long-term kernel support, those > >> groups are much better equipped to resource it than the Fedora > >> kernel team. > > > > Hm, so would the Fedora Server products base their releases then > > on CentOS instead? Otherwise, if due to resource constraints the > > Base > > No, please don't take that from what I said. I actually mean pretty > much the opposite. In my vision, the Fedora Server should be CLEARLY > the feeder channel for RHEL and CentOS server offerings (in that > order; Fedora Server is the feeder for RHEL server which is the feeder > for CentOS server). > > I merely meant that if a user absolutely needs a stabilized and > *supported* (in the commercial or near-commercial sense) kernel, that > they should be looking at products intended for that purpose. The > Fedora Server should certainly be useful, but not on the same ten-year > cycle. In general, if we settled on eighteen to twenty-four months of > updates, I think that would strike a usable balance. Well, even for 18-24 months of updates you first need buy-in from packagers (and probably our sponsor too as it was rejected several times). And with that conflict - resources to backport stuff or do updates (that's the reason why we have so many updates - no resources to backport fixes, more hope that upstream fixed it and it's regression free :D). So we need some balance - time, quality, rebases vs backports. And we can't have all of them :). Jaroslav -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
