On 11/15/2018 8:19 AM, John Florian wrote:
I totally agree, but we are talking about radical changes here and I think we should keep all options on the table. If some particular path forward is overwhelmingly desirable, that is the time to decide if the push is worth it, not earlier IMHO. If the proposal, whatever it be, is great and everyone agrees its great, the seriousness will be automatic. Fedora has a long history of catering to some niche ideals that parts of our community are dead against. It's awesome that Fedora is so flexible, but if we're going to fiddle with the release model, lets find something we *all* get behind and be happier with for the next 15 years, however radical it might look like right now.
This becomes even more important when one takes into account Fedora's position as the defacto head of the overall Red Hat -based distro community, notwithstanding the Penrose Triangle presentiation... EL-rebuild users (CentOS and SL) being on the far side of a mostly-opaque hardening process are doubly removed from meaningful input, and if a Fedora LTS of any type (rings, alternating intervals, etc) is to address any of those needs, all RH-ecosystem users probably have input worth soliciting.
I would submit that "Fedora" deciding an LTS policy might beg the question. Maybe the answer is there being a stable/LTS upstream that "Fedora" can itself (as one among peers) derive and override from, Debian->Ubuntu style.
-jc _______________________________________________ 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
