Thoughts on Fedora Server lifecycle

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> ok, so I finally sat down and looked at this some more...
>
> But I'm still not sure I understand what you are proposing. ;)
>
> Assuming base is releasing every 6 months, we make a 1.0pr1 against f21
> base, then a 1.0pr2 against f22 base, then a final 1.0 against f23
> base.
>
> How is server 1.1 made? Do we not need to make security updates or
> other changes to base? Or we only take the f23 base and use it for the
> rest of 1.x's life?

If it's the latter, it means the Server product is either on the hook
to do all the fixes and integration there, or Base needs to also
branch and extend at that point.  That's kind of what I was getting at
with my "who is maintaining that fork" questions earlier.

> What repo(s) does server use in this model?
>
> We wouldn't be releasing a 1.0 version for 12 months? I think thats the
> opposite of 'agile' ;)
>
> Also, I am not liking the release after base idea. We already 'freeze'
> for releases so we can get everything in a testable state. If we do so,
> then release base, it becomes a moving target so regressions can land
> when we are trying to test server.
>
> I don't think we can do a increased lifecycle unless base also supports
> that personally.

I tend to agree.  Otherwise you start hitting the same issues Fedora Legacy did.

josh