Server Admins: Why not Fedora?

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/01/2013 03:04 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 15:01 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 14:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> I agree on this, I think Fedora Server could see the 'stable'
>>> branch of other Fedora products as a sort of 'testing2' branch,
>>> and then a fedora server updates would go "Fedora Server
>>> stable" at a different pace, even skipping updates (except
>>> security ones).
>>> 
>> Just one thing, I think we need to be careful not to triple the
>> load on package maintainers without good reason.
> 
> Another question, when we get to Fedora Server 1.0 where are we
> going to source packages from ?
> 
> The Fedora 21 git branch, the 23 one ? A mix of the three ? What
> about build dependencies ? It can get hard quickly to try to mix
> and match packages from different releases, OTOH using always the
> latest one (F23 at release) kind of defeats stabilization unless
> you keep some set of package and the base on a leash for 18 mo.
> 

Only Fedora 23. Sorry if that was unclear in the other thread. My
intention was always to imply that each of the previews was based
wholely on the Fedora Base release at the same time. So the idea is
that every third release of Fedora Base would become the *stable*
Fedora Server N.0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlJz/TcACgkQeiVVYja6o6Mi9wCeKYlqA6qj0BbUKvKeNzG0x8YZ
6ugAn3zirWIk3F4qos3bnngpMa1vZzmG
=ZPD7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----