On Sat, Feb 06, 2021 at 10:41:16AM +0100, Clement Verna wrote: > Recordings are available on Fedora's youtube channel > > Growing Fedora CoreOS Community : > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSuBWeosAvQ > Fedora CoreOS as an Official Edition : > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5VAw8NRXNc > > You can also find the discussions notes here : > https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/pull/732/files - > Pull-request but that should be merged soon :) Hi Clement, thanks for making those available. I listened avidly to the discussion, and here's my take on the subject of "FCOS as Edition": in the discussion, you asked whether there should be "FCOS 33", "FCOS 34", etc, and the answer was an emphatic "no". My answer is "yes". What do I mean by that? I think it's fine to have a *goal* of just a smooth FCOS stream, i.e. to make the underlying Fedora version unimportant to users. But as a practical matter, it'll not be achievable and FCOS should instead accept that as long as FCOS is based on Fedora, the choices that Fedora "proper" makes and the cadence of releases will be visible in FCOS. As mentioned in the discussion "the package set is fairly vanilla bodhi stable with a bit of delay for the two week promotion timing". Even if FCOS is just a subset of those packages, the semiannual jump in package versions and configuration choices must be visible to some extent. There seems to be a broad consensus that FCOS should participate more in the Fedora Change process: both to monitor announced Changes and to announce changes in FCOS using a similar process. But I think FCOS should go a step further, and also *declare* that it follows the Fedora schedule. I do *not* mean by that FCOS stable stream should by switched on the same day that other Fedora editions make a release. The two week delay is quite reasonable. (In fact, seasoned users of Fedora "proper" know not to update immediately on the release day, and instead wait two or three weeks for wrinkles to be ironed out. Since FCOS does updates automatically, I think it's totally reasonable to bake such a delay into the plan.) But we should be able to say, in the release announcements, that "Workstation, Server, etc. release today, and FCOS switch of stable stream will follow in two weeks, if no last minute bugs are discovered. Users who want to preview the next version, should use the devel stream." Matthew said that users should be able to see all editions on getfedora.org, and it would be great to also have FCOS there, but it means that FCOS stable must be available on a predictable schedule. I think that tying FCOS to the the release schedule of other editions will actually be more of a change in perception than any reality, since FCOS already is following the bodhi update stream. FCOS has the ability to delay some changes and to apply local overrides. But doing that burns FCOS maintainer time, and ideally, should not be necessary. But changes that are bad for FCOS are probably bad for at least some users of other editions. *If* FCOS embraces the Change process and the effect of any and all changes on FCOS is evaluated early enough, those "downstream" overrides in FCOS should be replaced by fixes in the packages themselves, with a benefit to non-FCOS users too. In summary, becoming an Edition goes both ways: it constrains what FCOS can do, but it also allows FCOS to influence what happens in Fedora "proper". Marketing FCOS and other editions together will offer our users a more complete choice and strengthen the Fedora brand. It'll also make FCOS more visible and more trusted. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ 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
