On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:43 AM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think the kernel is a bad example here. It's exceedly stable
releases, so it's probably the one component that's least problematic
to upgrade during a fedora release. The fedora kernel team is already
doing that, and they are doing an excellent job, which they definitely
deserve more praise for than they get. For me, the frequent,
well-executed stable kernel updates are one thing that positively
distinguishes fedora from other non-rolling distros.
I wanted to offer a hearty +1 here. I have been thinking more about
the optimization needed for a faster release process, which would
*not* disadvantage our awesome kernel team.
I wouldn't foresee, for example, that we'd freeze on a specific kernel
for such a process. On the contrary, the kernel team does an *amazing*
job making sure that Fedora is relevant to the upstream kernel
community as much as possible. We routinely get fresh kernels with
updated hardware support. I wouldn't want to see this stop.
I understand the lifecycle goals theoretically also make possible a
longer term release. How that would happen should be based on what its
consumers need, and (maybe even more importantly) what our maintainers
are able to do without each being issued a Fedora Time Turner. I
don't want to optimize for that case because a much shorter cycle
(even with less fanfare) encourages us to pursue more automation and
more contributor empowerment.
* * *