On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:15 AM Brendan Conoboy <blc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Paul's proposal was definitely a one-time pause for the reasons you > state. He requested we follow-up with additional questions and > suggestions so I'm questioning and suggesting taking it a step > further. We talk about rolling releases, but people are skeptical due > to rawhide instability. What does it look like if the "rolling" > happens on top of an otherwise stable platform where fundamentals like > compilers, libraries and core system tools are held steady, but things > on top move fast? Maybe you don't need an F30.1, maybe it means F30 > just keeps getting nice incremental updates for as long as the > editions want to stick with it. Variable lifecycle or cadence can > open up these kinds of options. Some things are better fast. Some > things are better slow. This. Yes This. +100 I think that Fedora's role as an innovater in the OS space means we should be aggressively exploring this. Rolling Releases, Tech-Driven Releases and Time-Based Releases all have well known positives and negatives. All of the work that has been done on Modularity, containers, flatpaks, OSTree, and more, gives us the opportunity to really re-think this. While it is true there are dozens (or more) additional solutions to the too-fast/too-slow and the incompatible-libraries problems, these technologies seem to be gaining the most adoption across a variety of use cases. They are all also generally well supported in Fedora and we need to aggressively push them to achieve this goal or determine where the dead-end is so we can move to the next innovation. I personal am hugely in favor of us adopting a bootable-base model that allows us to iterate the kernel and the various user-space pieces at the speed of the upstream, the user's desires and the builder's desires[^0] all at the same time. While this will require us to do some level of NxM matrix building and testing, a base that didn't have to change often for most use cases reduces the matrix considerably. I'd push Brendans' concept further and suggest that we try to eliminate as many of the compilers, libraries and core system tools as possible from this bootable-base so that those can iterate at their own speed, perhaps 4 year for a laptop vendor and 30 day for a experimental ARM device. Fedora as a project might not build output for the whole range, but a build system that allowed us to help others be successful would be a huge help here. I recognize that I, like most people, see the world through the lens of my specific use case, but remember, "Fedora creates an innovative platform for hardware, clouds, and containers that enables software developers and community members to build tailored solutions for their users." As long as we don't block a use cases arbitrarily and we leave room for that innovation and service we are doing the right thing. The debate about what use cases should be done fully by Fedora, enabled for a SIG/WG via our build system or done externally by those using only the parts that make sense for them is a separate debate. regards, bex 0: Builder's desires are the desires of the person who put the entire system together to fulfill the needs of their community per our mission statement. If my mythical llama herders need the oldest Libre Office possible but the newest Rust packaging and whatever random version of httpd that Fedora deems "stable", then that is what I desire, even if the upstream or other non-llama herding users desire something different. However, I'd also push that we should try to reach a point where if a llama herder for non-llama reasons needs a different httpd, they can just enable and use it (using the language of modularity). In case it isn't clear, the "builder's desires" includes the goals of every current lab, spin, and edition, separately and where appropriate together. _______________________________________________ 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
