On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 12:10 -0500, David Mansfield wrote: > On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 12:57 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote: > > David Mansfield <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 20:24 -0800, Andrew Farris wrote: > > > > David Mansfield wrote: > > > > > I'm fairly new to this list so if this is flame-bait, then I apologize. > > > > > I was wondering whether there is any possibility of having the > > > > > occasional 'long term support' (LTS) release of Fedora (say one every > > > > > two years or something) so that users can settle down with the distro > > > > > and actually become productive with it. > > > > > > > > > > Say the LTS cycle is one release every two years (every fourth Fedora > > > > > release), and that the 'long term' for support only lasts for two years > > > > > (which is pretty short to use the term long for, I realize), then there > > > > > would only be one LTS release, and also the most current release to > > > > > worry about at any given time. > > > > > > > > > > If there is simply not enough teampower to do this, then that's > > > > > understood. > > > > > > That is essentially what was tried with the fedora legacy project > > > > (supporting eol fedora releases for a longer term) but there was not > > > > enough interest and support to keep it going. It did support RH9 and > > > > FC releases up to FC5 I think? > > > > > Almost the same. A few differences: > > > - that project was 'glued on' to an existing process instead of a part > > > of it > > > > No... it was one of the projects of the (not-RedHat) Fedora almost from the > > start. They supported pre-Fedora Red Hats. > > > > > - they came into the game with a number of releases to support already > > > > True. > > > > > - they wanted to support every release > > > > The idea was to support only those versions where interest was high enough > > to support the longer term maintenance. Each version had its fans, but none > > had enough longer term interest (say, more than 6 months after official > > EOL) to keep them going. Perhaps the latest Red Hat (9) had a bit more, but > > I suspect that had more to do with the name change than any objective > > reason. > > > > > I think Fedora LTS would be: > > > - planned and built into the Fedora cycle and finally implemented > > > - only releases planned in advance to be LTS releases would be LTS > > > - there would only be one (or two) outstanding LTS releases at a time > > > > As was offered, propose a SIG and gather people (lots of them!) to do the > > (hard, non-glamorous) work. > > If such a proposal was made, it would involve changes to the workflow > and cycle management of the core releases, even if the bulk of the > support work is to be done by a separate group. Would such a proposal > have a chance? I wouldn't expect it to have that many changes on the core cycle, because core would simply keep going on 6-month releases, while the LTS team could continue to handle the backports for the LTS release for another year after normal support was discontinued after about 12 - 15 months. Moving from a 6-month release cycle to a 1 year release cycle for even just one release isn't going to fly. Keeping the core release cycle constant and extending one particular release update lifetime might. Dan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
