[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Stability and Release Cycles - An Idea



Alan Cox wrote:
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 01:08:31PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
And what is your guess on the time it would take for a lawsuit threat if someone actually did provide a Fedora-labeled distribution that didn't meet Fedora policies?

I don't see the relevance of that question. If it doesn't follow Fedora policy
it isn't Fedora. It's another Fedora based distro with a longer lifetime.

Nothing to do with whether it can be done, and if it works well then maybe
it'll later become an official bit of Fedora.

The other way I can read you email is "I want to use the Fedora name for my own
purposes and do as I like so screw you all", which I hope is not the intent you
want to convey.

It's more like "Fedora would have to change before I would find it useful for any purpose", which I guess is only slightly different. Or at least any purpose other than a preview of what the next RHEL might contain and even that hasn't looked too promising lately.

But as far as making usably stable versions, there are a couple of approaches that would avoid wasting a lot of resources. One is to plan a smooth transition into the next Centos via yum update to end up with a real long term supported system without duplicating any work on backported updates. Another which isn't really a long-term approach but could produce usably-stable versions that overlapped a bit would be to stop introducing new features in updates in one release by or before the beta of the next release and focus only on stability from that point to end of life. Even if EOL is not extended you'd have a version that you could run until the next version reached that point - and people who want new features can jump to the next release instead.

--
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell gmail com



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]