-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 11/01/2013 03:48 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> On 11/01/2013 03:04 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 15:01 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 14:57 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>>> I agree on this, I think Fedora Server could see the
>>>> 'stable' branch of other Fedora products as a sort of
>>>> 'testing2' branch, and then a fedora server updates would
>>>> go "Fedora Server stable" at a different pace, even
>>>> skipping updates (except security ones).
>>> Just one thing, I think we need to be careful not to triple
>>> the load on package maintainers without good reason.
>> Another question, when we get to Fedora Server 1.0 where are
>> we going to source packages from ?
>> The Fedora 21 git branch, the 23 one ? A mix of the three ?
>> What about build dependencies ? It can get hard quickly to try
>> to mix and match packages from different releases, OTOH using
>> always the latest one (F23 at release) kind of defeats
>> stabilization unless you keep some set of package and the base
>> on a leash for 18 mo.
> Only Fedora 23. Sorry if that was unclear in the other thread.
> My intention was always to imply that each of the previews was
> based wholely on the Fedora Base release at the same time. So the
> idea is that every third release of Fedora Base would become the
> *stable* Fedora Server N.0
That implies that Fedora Base follows this "build to stable"
methodology over the course of 3 releases as well, correct? I'm
not saying that is a bad thing, but it needs to be worked out with
the Base WG as one of their primary goals.
Yeah, it's certainly worth talking about in that group.
Also, when Fedora Server N.0 forks, is that maintained in addition
to building towards Fedora Server N+1.0 on the now unstable Base?
This is essentially the idea that Spot pitched at FUDCon
Blacksburg. If the resources to pull it off are attainable, I
think it will go a long way but the requirements to do this
shouldn't be underestimated.
Let's try to avoid sidetracking this thread with discussion of that
idea. I started it in a separate thread on purpose. It's just one idea
and I'm amenable to having it shot down, but it's as good a place to
start as any.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----