On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 08:05:54PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> But there are some good cases for a longer lifecycle. For one
thing,
> this has been a really big blocker for getting Fedora shipped on
> hardware. Second, there are people who really could be happily running
> Fedora but since we don't check the tickbox, they don't even look at us
> seriously. I'd love to change these things. To do that, we need
> something that lasts for 36-48 months.
[...]
There are a lot of possibilities, but it is also that "something
that
lasts for 36-48 months" probably means something different to everyone
involved.
To some set it means "Whatever was shipped on Day0 had only better get
backported fixes and maybe, maybe minor updates", to others it means
"well it shouldn't have any major api/abi updates in those 36-48
months.. " to the "so this just means it should be a rolling update as
long as everything always works or resets easily". Is this
conversation completely blue-sky or are there boundaries we should
watch out for so we aren't arguing over "well why not make Fedora a
rebuild of Debian using a deb2rpm tool since they already are LTS" and
other people saying why not <fill in other LTS distro here>
Mostly blue sky -- let's generate ideas! -- but let's also stay within
reasonable possibilities, and also, you know, keeping it Fedora.
Particularly, I'm pretty sure about the goals: 1. getting Fedora desktop and
IoT shipped on systems and 2. expanding the community by getting Fedora into
places which don't consider us because we're perceived as too fleeting.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader