Because if we keep "no breaking updates in stable" policy, then Fedora won't be "first anymore". You can do this only if rawhide will be more popular between people.
On 11/16/18 7:50 AM, Paul Frields wrote:
> 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?
Brendan Conoboy / RHEL Development Coordinator / Red Hat, Inc.
devel mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe send an email to email@example.com
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://firstname.lastname@example.org