[Fedora Base Design WG] Committee FESCO approved, next steps

[Karel Zak]

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:41:25PM +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> On 11/06/2013 05:43 AM, Jon wrote:
> Right, release cycle will definitely be a hot topic, and i'd like us to

 Maybe too early, it's probably better to answer "what do you want to
 release" before you choice the right release cycle :-)
 
 It means -- what is QA role, how important is upstream role, do you want to
 backport often, how stable code is expected, how important are a new features,
 do you have man-power for all your dreams?

> investigate different types as well, e.g. not a time based but a major
> feature based cycle (e.g. new upstream kernel -> new release), continuous,

 +1
 
 I can imagine that we will synchronize (for example) kernel + util-linux +
 udev + systemd upgrades for the Fedora Base upgrade, NACK feature backports
 and fix only "really important bugs" in already released Base packages.

> support time for releases, what about feature backports and so forth. Lots
> revolving around those topics i think.
> 
> One request i also already got was if we in the Base WG could take a look at
> containers/sandboxes for applications as well. Basically so that the
> technology could be used by any derived product built on top of Base. And as
> there are currently multiple competing technologies being worked on
> (docker.io, systemd containers, libvirt-lxc, openshift cartridges) we'd need
> to evaluate those and decide which one(s) we'd want to offer as a "standard"
> from the Base product.

>From long term point of view I'm almost sure that we will see tendency to 
add more and more packages to the Base ;-)

    Karel

-- 
 Karel Zak  <kzak at redhat.com>
 http://karelzak.blogspot.com