On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:38:52AM -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
figuring out, ahead of the decision, what the expected experience is
for users and packagers. Does F30 have normal stability, or do we try
to keep users happy by moving things forward with ad-hoc updates and
cross-our-fingers and hope nothing breaks?
I tend to think about this in terms of GNOME - would we rebase to
GNOME 3.34 in the middle of F30 or not? But there's a lot of other
pieces of software where similar considerations apply: container
tools, cockpit, NetworkManager, etc.
And if we did do updates like that, would we consider respinning media
and making a "F30.1"?
Umm... can't we treat it the same as the Fedora 20/21 situation?
Skipping a GNOME release can be a bit painful for the upstream GNOME
community, which is overwhelmingly tilted towards Fedora, but it's not
the end of the world either. After all, I don't think the longer
Fedora 21 cycle had any negative long-term effect on that group at
all. :)
The Desktop Team could more aggressively backport bug-fixes to GNOME
3.34 upstream, and if needed backport selected features to Fedora 30
downstream. We have done this during the usual six month Fedora
releases (eg., Thunderbolt support, free RHEL in Boxes, etc.), and we
have done this for RHEL too, so there's some precedence in this area.