On 09/14/2015 05:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > You are right that we do need to think about overall goals to be > achieved, then the policies that achieve those goals. For my part I > am interested in distinguishing the OS from the applications that run > on top of it. This might be the difference between ring 0 and ring > 1. It's too early to tell, though. During today's base wg we talked > a little bit further about possible goals that a ring 0 might fulfill > (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-09-14/fedora_base_design_working_group.2015-09-14-14.15.log.html). > A few hypothetical possibilities as examples: > > 1. Make a "Base" (or ring0) compose who has its own alpha/beta/ga > cycle that precedes the RC deadlines for the current editions and > spins, providing a stable set of NVRs to base upon. > > 2. New boundaries for primary/secondary arch blocker status, rules > for excludearch, threshold for inclusion in primary koji, etc. > > 3. Decouple the ring 0 release cycle and support terms from the > editions. Maybe base comes out every 4 months. Or 9 months. Maybe > it's supported for 24 months. Things like that- it's small. > Editions and spins can pick the base release to build on. +1 These all sound like great ideas. Cheers, Carlos. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
