On 11/11/2013 12:36 PM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
On 11/09/2013 05:49 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> On 11/08/2013 08:36 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:35 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
>> <johannbg(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> OK hold your horses I think this is jumping the gun a bit since a)
>>> how long
>>> we maintain an release and or how that release cycle is shaped depends
>>> heavily upon the outcome of the baseWG
>> OTOH can already tell base what we'd like (if this is/will be the
>> consensus)
>
> Not really
>
Well, of course you can, and you should. Thats the whole point of
having the WGs and having Base:
Base is supposed to be the platform for all (or the majority of)
derived products in Fedora.
Therefore it's only logical that the needs of the different WGs should
drive some final decisions in Base. We have been pondering a bit about
schedules and releases already, but it really largely depends on what
the other WGs want and need and what we can in reality deliver with
the resources we have. As i mentioned before, having 8 supported
release streams at the same time is very likely to fail horribly. But
some products will want to have fast release cycles with shorter
lifespans while other products will want to have slower release cycles
with longer lifespans. And getting those all under one Base umbrella
where Base provides releases for all products will be tricky.
I'll probably end up with a counterproposal ( FedoraOS ) with what you
guys end up coming up and then have the community vote between those two.
The only way you can achieve what you mention there is to have the core
os to it's absolute minimum and it itself needs to be on a seperated
release cycle then the rest of the bits as things have been progressing
with them.
JBG