Thoughts on Fedora Server lifecycle

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

On 11/11/2013 12:36 PM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> 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.

I'll probably end up with a counterproposal ( FedoraOS ) with what you 
guys end up coming up and then have the community vote between those two.

The only way you can achieve what you mention there is to have the core 
os to it's absolute minimum and it itself needs to be on a seperated 
release cycle then the rest of the bits as things have been progressing 
with them.

JBG