On 27 Apr 2016 05:15, "Chris Murphy" <lists@colorremedies.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@redhat.com> wrote:
> > OK folks, it's Bad Decision Time.
>
> >
> > Options:
> > 1) Downgrade back to 4.x, downgrading or dropping any modules in the collection
> > that don't run on that LTS version.
> > 2) Stick with 5.x for the life of Fedora 24, handling security backports
> > ourselves once it hits EOL this summer.
> > 3) Upgrade to 6.x, fixing or dropping any modules in the collection that don't
> > run on it yet.
>
> Ok well they all sound like a shade of terrible for one reason or
> another, so I'll suggest one maybe more terrible so that in comparison
> these three sound better.
>
> Ship 5.x and basically plan on abandoning it when upstream does, i.e.
> no plan at all, in advance, to do security fixes beyond upstream's
> date. If they happen, it's a bonus. Kinda reminds me of this Red
> October quote from Cpt Ramius: "When he reached the New World, Cortez
> burned his ships. As a result his men were well motivated."
>
> Meanwhile 6.x goes into copr now and can "ship" voluntarily at anytime
> in the life of Fedora 24.
>
> Include the plan in the release notes and common bugs, and ask
> volunteers to point this out in particular on upstream's EOL day for
> 5.x as a friendly reminder on the usual forums and such.
>
> --
>

It's an interesting proposition, though I dislike the idea of abandoning a tech in Fedora during the supported lifespan of the distro. It seems like it'd set a bad precedent.

It's certainly something we should not entertain without FESCO approval though at any rate I'd suggest.

Gut feels like the 6.X build attempt, except excessively late in the cycle, would seem the best bad decision if we didn't get FESCO clearance in the breakage of a node 6 release during the Fedora 24 lifecycle.