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(a)chello.at> 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