[Fedora Base Design WG] Committee FESCO approved, next steps
jwboyer at fedoraproject.org
Wed Nov 6 13:46:28 UTC 2013
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Phil Knirsch <pknirsch at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/06/2013 05:43 AM, Jon wrote:
>> Another item I'd like to consider for the initial discussion is the
>> release cycle for the base design. My feeling is that base is small
>> enough and simple enough to allow a more frequent release, perhaps even
>> continuously. My guess is the other WGs will have their own ideas for
>> how frequently they output. So base WG would need to be the lowest
>> common denominator in that way. Obviouly rel-eng and qa need to
>> represent for this topic. :-)
> Right, release cycle will definitely be a hot topic, and i'd like us to
> investigate different types as well, e.g. not a time based but a major
> feature based cycle (e.g. new upstream kernel -> new release), continuous,
> support time for releases, what about feature backports and so forth. Lots
> revolving around those topics i think.
Unless you want to do a release every 3 months, the kernel probably
isn't going to be a good thing to key off of. I mean, it's a thing we
could do, but if we did that we'd probably want to treat it in a
fashion where a new Base release can fit into an older product release
for some reasonable definition of old. Similar to how we rebase the
kernel in existing releases today, with perhaps a bit more lead time
> One request i also already got was if we in the Base WG could take a look at
> containers/sandboxes for applications as well. Basically so that the
> technology could be used by any derived product built on top of Base. And as
> there are currently multiple competing technologies being worked on
> (docker.io, systemd containers, libvirt-lxc, openshift cartridges) we'd need
> to evaluate those and decide which one(s) we'd want to offer as a "standard"
> from the Base product.
Yes, the Workstation WG is interested in this as well.
More information about the devel