On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 19:27, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi everyone! Let's talk about something new and exciting. Since its > first release fifteen years ago, Fedora has had a 13-month lifecycle > (give or take). That works awesomely for many cases (like, hey, we're > all here), but not for everyone. Let's talk about how we might address > some of the users and use cases we're missing out on. > > When I talk to people about this, I often get "hey, you should do LTS > or go to rolling releases.” As I've said before, on the surface that's > a weird thing to say, since the actual user impact of those two > different things is mostly _opposite_. So, digging in, it often really > means "I don't want the pain and fear of big OS upgrades". > > We've addressed that in several ways: first, making upgrades better. > (Thanks everyone who has worked on that.) A Fedora release-to-release > update is normally not much more trouble than you might get some random > Tuesday with a rolling release. Second, we have some things like Fedora > Atomic Host and upcoming Fedora CoreOS and IoT which both implement a > rolling stream on top of the Fedora release base. And finally, there's > the coming-someday plans for gating Rawhide, making that a better > proposition for people who really want to live on the edge. > > But there are some good cases for a longer lifecycle. For one thing, > this has been a really big blocker for getting Fedora shipped on > hardware. Second, there are people who really could be happily running > Fedora but since we don't check the tickbox, they don't even look at us > seriously. I'd love to change these things. To do that, we need > something that lasts for 36-48 months. > > So, what would this look like? I have some ideas, but, really, there > are many possibilities. That's what this thread is for. Let's figure it > out. How would we structure repositories? How would we make sure we're > not overworked? How would we balance this with getting people new stuff > fast as well? > There are a lot of possibilities, but it is also that "something that lasts for 36-48 months" probably means something different to everyone involved. To some set it means "Whatever was shipped on Day0 had only better get backported fixes and maybe, maybe minor updates", to others it means "well it shouldn't have any major api/abi updates in those 36-48 months.. " to the "so this just means it should be a rolling update as long as everything always works or resets easily". Is this conversation completely blue-sky or are there boundaries we should watch out for so we aren't arguing over "well why not make Fedora a rebuild of Debian using a deb2rpm tool since they already are LTS" and other people saying why not <fill in other LTS distro here> -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
