Thoughts on Fedora Server lifecycle

[Phil Knirsch]

On 11/09/2013 05:49 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> On 11/08/2013 08:36 PM, 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)
>
> Not really
>

Well, of course you can, and you should. Thats the whole point of having 
the WGs and having Base:

Base is supposed to be the platform for all (or the majority of) derived 
products in Fedora.

Therefore it's only logical that the needs of the different WGs should 
drive some final decisions in Base. We have been pondering a bit about 
schedules and releases already, but it really largely depends on what 
the other WGs want and need and what we can in reality deliver with the 
resources we have. As i mentioned before, having 8 supported release 
streams at the same time is very likely to fail horribly. But some 
products will want to have fast release cycles with shorter lifespans 
while other products will want to have slower release cycles with longer 
lifespans. And getting those all under one Base umbrella where Base 
provides releases for all products will be tricky.

Thanks & regards, Phil

-- 
Philipp Knirsch              | Tel.:  +49-711-96437-470
Manager Core Services        | Fax.:  +49-711-96437-111
Red Hat GmbH                 | Email: Phil Knirsch <pknirsch at redhat.com>
Wankelstrasse 5              | Web:   http://www.redhat.com/
D-70563 Stuttgart, Germany