On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 19:07, 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.
It is hard for something that releases every 2 weeks to align with the rest of the schedule, we have the same struggle with the container images. It feels odd to have to wait 6 months to introduce changes when you release a new version every couple weeks.
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.
I am open to moving this to F3X but I currently don't have a clear idea of what is required to be an Edition. If I could get a list of things that needs to be done, that would help consider if this is doable or not.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________ 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
