On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 15:12 +1300, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> open? Without a firm timeline on when to close a branch.. will we > >> ever see a branch close? > > > > Why would we want to? Just let things going as long as there is at least one > > maintainer committing something. Even if not all security issues get fixed, > > it's better than if none gets fixed. > > I don't think anyone would sign up as a user for such "support". LTS > is about a fairly specific promise that is very hard to commit to. How so? It would be a legacy effort, run by volunteers, no guarantees, no commitments. > The work I am doing would definitely benefit from having some Fedora > releases turn into LTS, even if it's perhaps for clearly defined a > subset of packages. What Ubuntu does with it's LTS is hard for the > distro team but is excellent for "users" (re-spinners) like OLPC. Yes, but their notion of "LTS" is different from that of the "Legacy Fedora" we are discussing here. > At the moment, it's not clear to me (perhaps because I haven't read > the appropriate doco...) > > - Which Fedora release becomes the base for the next RH/CentOS release. Pardon, to me that's a RH internal business, not of any importance to Fedora. > - How I transition my userbase from Fedora support to CentOS support at EOL This thought is exactly what I am aiming against. I want to people to stay with Fedora, which would imply them to upgrade to a newer Fedora, instead of seeing them switching away from Fedora. > So I think it is a fair expectation to be able to "follow" a Fedora > release into its RH/CentOS stabilisation, knowing that the process > exists and that the stable branches are published. It definitely works > for other distros. Perhaps it's possible with Fedora -- hints and > pointers welcome. > > But I would not sign up for the "whatever" support plan some people > are suggesting -- how the hell do I plan for it? Ah, some things might > get patched, some might not, and we won't know or tell in advance. Right, but if you are consequent, you could start with the latest released CentOS/RHEL right from the beginning instead of Fedora. Besides the fact that the Fedora->RHEL upgrade path is unsupported (and will never be complete), you'd loose some "technology preview", however you would avoid "the Fedora hassle" more or less entirely. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
