Rolling release model philosophy

[Simon Lukasik]

On 11/04/2012 04:50 PM, Denis Arnaud wrote:
> Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 14:07:02 +0100
> Simon Lukasik <isimluk at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 
>> Currently, each Fedora release is kept alive for 13(+/-) months. There
>> were dozens of threads about shortening or prolonging period -- but I am
>> not sure if something like the following has been ever discussed:
>> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==1 -- is alive for 7 months.
>> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==2 -- is alive for 7 months.
>> Each N-th Fedora release -- where N%3==0 -- is alive for 19 months.
>>
>> Additionally, maintainers might be encouraged to push their system wide
>> changes into N%3==1. As well as they might be encouraged to make the
>> Fedora N%3==0 their best bread.
>>
> 
> +1
> Just to be sure I understand: when N%3==1 or N%3==2, Fedora N is no longer
> supported as soon as Fedora N+1 is released, right?
> 

Right. I am proposing to shorten that time, because otherwise it would
force contributors to maintain 3-4 release. Which is, as we all know, no-go.

> The N%3 seems a little bit like RedHat vs. Fedora to me, with a rolling
> cycle of 6 Fedora releases rather than just 3. Indeed, AFAIU, every around
> 6 Fedora releases, a new (LTS) RedHat release is cooked (Fedora 13 =>
> RedHat 6, Fedora 19 =>? RedHat 7).
> 

Yep, there might be some similarity, but I don't see it as a bad thing.
It may eventually strengthen the ecosystem.

-- 
Simon Lukasik