Fedora release lifecyle

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jesse Keating wrote:
> Look, lets be honest here.  Fedora isn't all that great of a distro for a 
> stable server.  We don't do backports, we play with new technology, we've got 
> a fast paced development cycle, etc...  Lets not try to be something we 
> aren't.

We already do 9% backports in a Fedora release according to the stats I 
read at 
http://www.redhat.com/f/summitfiles/presentation/May31/Security/Cox_Management.pdf 
(Refer page 12: Fedora Policy).  A fact paced development cycle can 
continue along a extended post release updates lifecycle. Distributions 
in a similar circle have already managed to do this as a I posted 
earlier for comparison. We will have the advantage of leveraging 
community input more through the planned merge of core and extras so 
resource spreading out existing resources thin becomes less of a concern.

If we are not planning on having Fedora as a stable server, we should 
not release a server variant. If we are going to do desktop and server 
variants, we should put some incrementally more effort into actually 
have something useful in each of these variants rather than just a 
different bunch of packages and stop going back and forth on what we are 
trying to do. I do agree that we should find some middle ground but I 
dont we have that already with the existing plan.

Rahul