Thoughts on Fedora Server lifecycle

[Stephen Gallagher]

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

On 11/07/2013 11:01 PM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 02:30 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> I spent the last hour trying to draw up a decent timeline
>> graphic, but I am terrible at this and so I will instead attempt
>> to explain it in text. Please bear with me.
> 
> Is this an accurate representation?
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/1/12/Serverwg-proposal-serverlifecycle-timeline.png
>
>  (if anybody wants to poke at the source, 
> https://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/1/11/Serverwg-proposal-serverlifecycle-timeline.svg
>
> 
The font is Droid Sans)
> 


Not *exactly* (but this is pretty much exactly the graphic I was
trying and failing to draw, so thank you for that). The "security
fixes only" phase was going to start at N.3[1], not be from N.2 to
N.3. The idea was for there to be an overlap period to allow stable
deployments to migrate to N+1.

That would also allow us to make some statements about upgrade path.
For example, we could establish that the only "supported" (tested?)
upgrade path is from N.3 -> N+1.0 (i.e 1.3 -> 2.0) and that while it
should work from N.x to N+1.y, there will be no validation of that.


So while I've been talking about an 18-month lifecycle, I suppose it
was more clearly a 24-month lifecycle, but with the last six months
operating in effectively
EOL-you-should-upgrade-but-we'll-give-you-breathing-room mode.


[1] I realize in my original email I stated

[F]inally Fedora 26 would offer only "Fedora Server 2.0" as install
media. At this time, Fedora Server 1.0 would become "security-fixes only"

This was confusing and should have read "Fedora Server 1.3" for clarity.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlJ9BGEACgkQeiVVYja6o6MJTgCfTV6y4yq+zZMpJubjQ1l1Hqfh
8Z8AnAyUSju38584rHgs25cYHF6OLYCG
=5RrL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----