updates and testing instead of lifecycle

Miloslav Trma─Ź mitr at volny.cz
Fri Nov 8 20:28:41 UTC 2013

On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:23 PM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com> wrote:
> So, instead of trying to tweak the life cycle, how about another
> alternate approach:
I'm not sure I understand the proposed alternative.

> - We setup new rules/critera/test plans for when updates are allowed to
>   go stable that are in this group.
> - Work to improve fedup support for server use cases (remote machine,
>   etc) and make sure Fn->Fn+1 for server case is heavily tested and
>   rollbacks are supported.

This seems to suggest updates on the "Fn->Fn+1" schedule (presumed to
be 6 months?).  Is that correct?

Or are you proposing to not tackle the lifecycle question at all now,
and instead focus on these areas?

More information about the server mailing list