On 11/14/18 2:35 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
If Fedora had longer life cycles, and more streams maintained in parallel, then I think the result would be that I end up doing rebases for everything I maintain rather than trying to backport anything. Admittedly this would somewhat negate the supposed benefit of having stable long life releases, but its either that or the releases bitrot accumulating more & more bugs & security flaws.
At least for the kernel, if we actually had a Fedora LTS we could do the opposite of what we have now which is rebase as soon as the kernel releases. The kernel already has LTS releases available which are nominally maintained for two years (c.f. https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html). Because of the timing of the kernel releases (about every 90 days) we just end up rebasing within a Fedora release because there usually isn't time to try and pick an LTS kernel to use. An actual Fedora LTS would mean we could potentially align to what LTS kernel upstream chooses. More generally though, this makes sense for the kernel because that project already thinks about LTS. If a project doesn't already have a well defined LTS release then I suspect many packagers will just end up rebasing because it's more comprehensive. Thanks, Laura _______________________________________________ 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
