Matthew Miller píše v Út 13. 11. 2018 v 18:36 -0500: > 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? We've done a really good job stabilizing Fedora, but based on observations and conversations with users I think the model has been getting to its limit in terms of userbase. There are simply too many deplyoments which require a different kind of stability than the current Fedora can offer (things may not break, but they still change and change often). That's why I think LTS is an opportunity for us to grow. If we want to have an LTS I think we have to give up something. It'd be really difficult to do it on the top of the 6-month releases. An idea I've been entertaining recently is something like this: - unstable rolling release (Rawhide) - stable rolling release (basically gated Rawhide with stable versions of components) - for the early adopters who want the latest and greatest - LTS It would definitely need multiple groups with different treatment: Ring 1 - kernel+base user space, stability is the highest priority, if any rebases, then very well tested. Ring 2 - e.g. desktop environments, rebases allowed, but well tested and planned, perhaps aligned with some minor releases of Fedora LTS (.1, .2,...). Ring 3 - rolling release components, those can be based on the stable rolling release Fedora and shipped via Flatpak/modules... maintainers can then only support one version for all releases of Fedora, this can be a viable mode for most desktop apps. Jiri _______________________________________________ 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
