On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 11:06:18PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > I don't understand why we are doing that "Fedora.NEXT" thing in the > first place. It's a lot of change for the sake of change, without any > idea whether the output will be better than the status quo, or even > whether there will be any (usable) output at all! For what my opinion is worth (as someone who's been around since the RHL4.1 days) I have to agree. I've paid close attention to this ongoing saga, ad while the old development and governence model had its warts, it did seem to work consistently for Fedora's stated foundational goals (Freedom, Friends, Features, First) So far the only tangible result is that the release date for F21 is delayed (which is probably a good thing) Everything else seems to be "It's Fedora, just totally different and not Fedora any more." The main "feature" I've seen requested is an intermediate-cadence support cycle between RHEL/clones' 5-year and Fedora's 1ish-year, but nobody (especially not those asking for it) seems willing/able to do the work to provide that support on the (nontrivial!) distro-level scale. (I remember all too well the Fedora Legacy folks' pleading for help..) A longer release cadence means we lose the 'First' goal (both in the First-to-market and Upstream-First sense), and the main beneficiary seems to be those who think the 'Freedom' goal only applies to themselves, not their downstream users. Anyway. I'll shut back up, but I would really hate to see Fedora's unique (and IMO successful) model get thrown out. It really is a matter of principles. - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org Delray Beach, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Attachment:
pgpdlsJTNd3Aw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
