Fedora Ring 0 definition

[Brendan Conoboy]

On 09/07/2015 06:52 AM, Miloslav Trmac wrote:
[snip]
> Oh I’m not at all suggesting that the Fedora universe should not be
> self-hosting, or that this self-hosting property should not be
> regularly verified by mass rebuilds or the like.
>
> I just wanted to say that that having various /subsets/ of the Fedora
> universe, and especially the by-definition-smallest ring 0 or its
> immediate superset, self hosting, is vastly complicating matters and I
> don’t see a benefit to it.
>     Mirek

Let's say ring 0 isn't self hosting, but ring 0 + 1 ring is.  Can we 
offer a longer term of support for ring 0 than ring 1?  What happens 
when a bug in ring 0 requires a fix in ring 1, but the support window 
for ring 1 has closed?  That's the main thing that's worrying about a 
free-for-all with self hosting.

-- 
Brendan Conoboy / RHEL Development Coordinator / Red Hat, Inc.