Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Neal Gompa píše v St 14. 11. 2018 v 07:54 -0500:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 7:49 AM Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > On 11/14/2018 11:35 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.
> > 
> > I agree, this would lead to too much workload on the maintainers if
> > we
> > just add a new long-lived branch. There's already rawhide, F29,
> > F28, F27
> > which is already quite a lot of branches to maintain.
> > 
> > However, I think this could work if we change how long we maintain
> > the
> > non-LTS branches.
> > 
> > If we reduce the non-LTS supported time from 13 months to, let's
> > say, 7
> > months (2 months overlap to allow for time to upgrade) then perhaps
> > it
> > could work? And then add a LTS branch that's supported for 3 years?
> > We'd
> > have the same number of branches as now, just that one is LTS.
> > 
> 
> That's basically the Ubuntu model. They do 9 months for regular
> releases, and 5 years (originally 3 years) for LTS releases.
> 
> However, what could also work would be something along the lines of
> openSUSE Evergreen[1] model (prior to the shift to openSUSE Leap +
> Tumbleweed), where the community decides on a version to stabilize
> and
> maintain for bugfixes for an extended period of time. If we wanted to
> talk about having extended lifecycles, I think this would be a
> workable model. This would be similar to the original Fedora Legacy
> project (if anyone remembers that!).

That's my thinking, too. Having releases supported for 7 months is not
really worth it, let's rather switch to a stable rolling release for
those who want the latest and greatest. LTS will be there for the rest.
And the rolling release version can also serve as a stream of apps for
LTS releases. We can build the latest Firefox with the latest stable
Fedora bits and provide it on LTS releases as a flatpak. A single build
for all releases. The model may actually even be easier for
maintainers.

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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux