On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:26 PM Brendan Conoboy <blc(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 11/16/18 7:50 AM, Paul Frields wrote:
[snip]
> We should skip the F31 release cycle and leave F30 in place longer in
> order to focus on improving the tooling and testing changes. These
> tooling changes will improve the overall reliability of Fedora, and
> will decrease the manual effort and complexities involved in producing
> the distribution artifacts. Although we’ve done this before to make
> “editions” happen, the intent is to track this multi-team effort more
> actively so we can (1) use the time as well as possible, and (2) give
> the work maximum transparency.
If there is going to be a pause F30 seems like a good place to do it:
New glibc, new compiler- and a full year for them to mature. It's a
nice basis for a stable platform. What would the update policy be for
this year- same as today? It seems like you're proposing this as a
one-time event to pay down technical debt, which is great, but would
you perhaps consider doing the same thing for F31, F32, etc? The
basic reasons for technical debt will continue- why not plan to
service the debt regularly?
Long cycles have been done before, and will be done again, it has been
4 or 5 years since the last one. I think skipping to a yearly cadence
for every release isn't such a great idea. There are benefits to the
cadence we have, but I do think perhaps a plan to regularly do this
might be a good thing. Just as a ballpark, perhaps once every 5
releases. This would allow people to actually plan the big workloads
for this timeframe. F30 is a 1 year, the next is F35. Once F31 is
done, I can start planning the big project for F36. Of course it
could also be argued that we only do a long release when needed, but
this doesn't really allow us to plan as well, and doesn't set
expectations for the community in the same way.
Justin