Feature proposal: Extended Life Cycle Support
Jeroen van Meeuwen
kanarip at kanarip.com
Mon Jul 6 15:36:25 UTC 2009
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 07:11:30 -0400, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, the sky does not fall. There are a few hurdles though.
>
> 1) Master mirror space. This used to be an issue, in that we had to move
> older releases to alt.fp.o in order to make space for the new release. I
> believe we still do that, so either the yum.repo.d config files for the
EOL
> release would need to be changed, or we'd have to grow a lot more mirror
> space.
>
> 2) Update push times. It takes 3+ hours to mash f9-updates right now.
> Keeping
> that time duration in the official updates pushing for an EOL release
would
> be really annoying. Particularly since we are already going to hit some
> major
> time hurdles as F10 and F11 age and definitely when we add F12.
>
These are very valid constraints/concerns which I've added to the Feature
wiki page. This is stuff I like to hear ;-)
> It doesn't work that way in practice. If it is allowed, it is official.
> You
> have to coordinate downtimes, End-of-Life-After-Death times, etc. The
> minute
> it's disabled early for one reason or another (space, time constraints,
> etc)
> people will cry foul even if it was "unofficial".
>
This (downtimes, etc) is why initially, I wanted the period of time between
EOS and EOL to match a release cycle. I guess these dependencies make it a
little more required to stick with periods of time equal to the
release-cycle of a Fedora release.
>>If it turns out that there _is_ enough interest and the interested
>>people are _actually_ keeping on top of security fixes etc., then maybe
>>we could consider officially admitting that it happens, and _then_
>>publishing it as a 'feature'. And/or extending it to more than one extra
>>release. But those are all questions for the future.
>
> I would encourage people to run this as a secondary architecture. CVS
> still
> remains open for commits. You could just have a secondary koji hub for
the
> builds.
>
It that's the solution to problems (to be) set forth, then so be it. I
would love to have it as part of the primary infrastructure but then again
it's no blocker.
>>If it doesn't take too much infrastructure work, I see no reason why we
>>shouldn't let them _try_. It doesn't hurt Fedora at all, does it?
>
> There is minimal pain, yes. Mostly to infrastructure and rel-eng. What
I
> don't immediately see is the benefit to Fedora overall.
>
Is it you question the benefit given in the paragraph on the Feature page,
or ...?
Thanks,
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
More information about the devel
mailing list