On 11/14/18 3:56 PM, Laura Abbott wrote:
On 11/14/18 5:29 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 12:32:14PM +0100, Adam Samalik wrote:
>> Do we have any user data about what "stability" means to users and
>> on what
>> different levels that can be achieved? Is it about app versions
>> such as
>> MariaDB? is it about language runtime versions such as Node.js? is
>> it about
>> things like glibc? or kernel? Or does it need to be the whole
>> distro as we
>> have it today?
>>
>> In case we don't find a uniform solution that would fit all those
>> cases (==
>> for the whole release as we know it today), focusing on those specific
>> levels (modules? rings?! ;) ) might help with different approaches
>> could
>> help us at least a little bit. Well, considering there are some.
>
> I'm thinking mostly about a base platform. And even there, I think
> kernel
> versions and such can change -- we don't need a RHEL-style kernel ABI
> promise. We just need changes there to not break 1) the hardware it
> runs on
> and 2) the stuff on top.
So it's business as usual for the kernel then :)
More seriously, I do think we need to define what LTS actually means.
Especially for the kernel, there's already LTS defined upstream but that
may not align with what Fedora wants to do elsewhere. We may not want
a super strong RHEL ABI but actual LTS users may not want to deal with
other aspects of a kernel upgrade.
Does Fedora remaining on the same kernel for a longer period of time
open up useful opportunities? EG, if the same kernel were the default
for a longer period of time would that help make it suitable for
factory installs? I really enjoy that the same Fedora release goes
through many kernels in its lifetime, but being able to buy an XPS
with Fedora would easily equal that delight.
--
Brendan Conoboy / RHEL Development Coordinator / Red Hat, Inc.