On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 5:58 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:22 PM Adam Williamson > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > So to boil this down into a representative question: when we are doing > > the Fedora 34 Go/No-Go meeting in ~four months' time, how do we decide > > whether to release "Fedora CoreOS 34"? > > > This question is relevant to my interests. > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:36 PM Adam Williamson > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Note that if you go to getfedora.org and click on CoreOS *right now*, > > it offers you a Fedora 32-based CoreOS. This is the kind of thing that > > is kinda fine so long as it's an Emerging Edition. It would *not*, > > IMHO, be fine for an Edition. If we accept CoreOS as an edition and two > > months after Fedora 34 is "released", our "stable" CoreOS is still > > Fedora 33-based, that seems like the sort of thing that would look bad. > > I agree. I understand the reasoning, but I'd really like to see FCOS > align with the rest of the schedule or at least develop a clear and > succinct explanation of why it's delayed so that the public and the > tech press can easily understand. > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:31 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I would personally rather see Fedora CoreOS pulled *back* into the > > fold more as an Edtion > > From a program management perspective, I've largely closed my eyes and > gone "la la la" when it comes to FCOS, in part because it is so > separate from what we know as Fedora. Making FCOS work more like what > we know as Fedora would certainly be helpful from my perspective, but > at the same time there are technical challenges to that. And maybe > what FCOS does from a distro-building standpoint is more like what we > should move toward. Maybe not. > > In any case, part of the work to be done here, if the Change is > approved, is for me to figure out how to include FCOS in some of the > program management work. > > I wonder if it would be better to target this for Fedora 35, with some > of the work starting now. Given the work it took to get IoT into the > fold (which, as Adam noted, is a smaller effort than FCOS), Fedora 34 > feels pretty optimistic here. >From memory we started in IoT Edition process in earnest in F-32, part of the delay here was because there had never really been the process properly defined for promotion, but it took some time and engagement across a number of areas of the project which I feel were useful for the IoT Edition, overall starting the discussion for what's required and expected is useful for the Edition themselves to improve and work in the right direction IMO from experience. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
