On 12/2/20 12:57 PM, Ben Cotton 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. That's fair. I think the answer to this question is that we need to consider the way the Fedora CoreOS update streams/release model can play into this. In short I think we'll all need to evolve a bit. It's just not going to be the exact same as traditional Fedora major releases have been. > > 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. I 100% would like to get to a point where we rebase to the latest Fedora major soon after release. As jlebon mentioned earlier this does mean working harder to get ahead of the curve by adopting a rawhide development stream (not exposed to users) and taking more part in the Changes process. > > 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. Yes. I think we should consider it with a slightly different perspective than we do other editions, but I'm definitely not asking for a pass. Let's work together to define the future. > > 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 think that's reasonable, but maybe we can meet sooner to try to get some answers to foundational questions answered so that we can be prepared to be in better compliance for the Fedora 35 timeframe. Dusty _______________________________________________ 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
