Fedora Ring 0 definition

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 09/14/2015 05:10 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> You are right that we do need to think about overall goals to be
> achieved, then the policies that achieve those goals.  For my part I
> am interested in distinguishing the OS from the applications that run
> on top of it.  This might be the difference between ring 0 and ring
> 1.  It's too early to tell, though.  During today's base wg we talked
> a little bit further about possible goals that a ring 0 might fulfill
> (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2015-09-14/fedora_base_design_working_group.2015-09-14-14.15.log.html).
> A few hypothetical possibilities as examples:
> 
> 1. Make a "Base" (or ring0) compose who has its own alpha/beta/ga
> cycle that precedes the RC deadlines for the current editions and
> spins, providing a stable set of NVRs to base upon.
> 
> 2. New boundaries for primary/secondary arch blocker status, rules
> for excludearch, threshold for inclusion in primary koji, etc.
> 
> 3. Decouple the ring 0 release cycle and support terms from the
> editions.  Maybe base comes out every 4 months. Or 9 months.  Maybe
> it's supported for 24 months.  Things like that- it's small.
> Editions and spins can pick the base release to build on.

+1

These all sound like great ideas.

Cheers,
Carlos.