On 11/01/2013 06:30 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Related to my earlier mail "Server Admins: Why not Fedora?", I wanted
to specifically discuss some lifecycle ideas. Every few months, people
start shouting again for a "Fedora LTS" and people generally respond
with "we couldn't support that with volunteers" or "go use
RHEL/CentOS/SL".
Suppose for a moment that we did things a little differently in the
Fedora Server. We don't want to get out of sync with the release cycle
set by the Base Design WG, certainly. But at the same time, I think we
can come up with a fairly simple way to maintain the Fedora Server for
a longer time period.
On the note of LTS release basically here's the thing since I have a
pretty firm idea how the core/baseOS which I choose to refer to as
"FedoraOS" release cycle should look like and that is that it will be
tied to the kernel release cycle with the execption when an kernel LTS
release, which is when it naturally would gain it's first LTS release
and would be maintained as such until next kernel LTS release would get
released.
Now what this means is the chosen "FedoraOS" would always move forward (
with the exception of LTS release ) as in FedoraOS 1.0 would get (
monthly roughly 3) minor updates to the entire stack which would be
upgraded it to Fedora 1.1 --> Fedora 1.2, --> Fedora 1.3 --> New kernel
release FedoraOS 2.0 released
Now in QA this would gives the chance to test the entire stack as whole
and I would like to see something similar for a specific "product" as in
being able to test the entire product updates as a whole ( even thou
those bit move slower then the FedoraOS )
JBG