Thoughts on Fedora Server lifecycle

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 09:36:42PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:35 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> <johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK hold your horses I think this is jumping the gun a bit since a) how long
> > we maintain an release and or how that release cycle is shaped depends
> > heavily upon the outcome of the baseWG
> OTOH can already tell base what we'd like (if this is/will be the consensus)
> 
> > and the bigger unanswered question b)
> > How are you going to push volunteers on supporting software, they're using
> > in a different version any longer?
> 
> The beauty of this proposal is that except for the limited x.[34]
> period, there is only one _supported_ version at any time - i.e. even
> less load than current Fedora package maintenance.  The "preview"
> releases are roughly test composes of rawhide before branching, in
> current terminology.

Well, there is only one supported version from the Server WG, but there is still
the Desktop edition, the cloud edition and maintainer may have eggs in different
baskets. So although I think the overlap of packages may be rather small, there
will be a number of person that will have to deal with two or maybe even three
products, and eventually, different version/release of these.

So, I think the question from Jóhann is one of the key question for this
proposal. Who is going to be doing the work on maintaining, backporting the pile
of packages required by the different 'target' of this WG.

Out of curiosity, how many people have subscribed to this list?

Pierre