[Fedora Base Design WG] Committee FESCO approved, next steps
kzak at redhat.com
Tue Nov 12 10:42:01 UTC 2013
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:41:25PM +0100, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> On 11/06/2013 05:43 AM, Jon wrote:
> Right, release cycle will definitely be a hot topic, and i'd like us to
Maybe too early, it's probably better to answer "what do you want to
release" before you choice the right release cycle :-)
It means -- what is QA role, how important is upstream role, do you want to
backport often, how stable code is expected, how important are a new features,
do you have man-power for all your dreams?
> 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,
I can imagine that we will synchronize (for example) kernel + util-linux +
udev + systemd upgrades for the Fedora Base upgrade, NACK feature backports
and fix only "really important bugs" in already released Base packages.
> support time for releases, what about feature backports and so forth. Lots
> revolving around those topics i think.
> 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.
>From long term point of view I'm almost sure that we will see tendency to
add more and more packages to the Base ;-)
Karel Zak <kzak at redhat.com>
More information about the devel