Thoughts on Fedora Server lifecycle

[Miloslav Trmač]

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 04:02 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> So, when Fedora Server 1.0 forks, that is maintained in addition
>> to building towards Fedora Server 2.0 on the now unstable Base?
>> This is essentially the idea that Spot pitched at FUDCon
>> Blacksburg.  If the resources to pull it off are attainable, I
>> think it will go a long way but the requirements to do this
>> shouldn't be underestimated.
>
> Yes, agreed. I do think that this is a little more achievable than
> Tom's original proposal though, since we're talking about a much
> smaller version of the Fedora Project than he was. Here we're talking
> about a highly-constrained set of packages that makes up the Server
> default install, which we should be striving to keep as small as
> possible.
_Default_ install only?  What about the "500 applications" (to use
Jóhann's terminology) that are a part of the wider server universe but
not the default install?

Where do they live?  Are they released/maintained as part of Server
N.{1,2}, only not part of the default install?  Or are they outside
somewhere in the Commons (which would require both Base and Commons to
follow the Server branching model, or at least to give ABI guarantees
that track the Server branching model)?
    Mirek