long term support release

[David Mansfield]

On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 20:59 -0900, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2008 6:16 PM, David Mansfield <fedora at dm.cobite.com> wrote:
> > Say the LTS cycle is one release every two years (every fourth Fedora
> > release), and that the 'long term' for support only lasts for two years
> > (which is pretty short to use the term long for, I realize), then there
> > would only be one LTS release, and also the most current release to
> > worry about at any given time.
> >
> > If there is simply not enough teampower to do this, then that's
> > understood.
> 
> 
> This has come up a lot recently. it seems the LTS acronym has gained
> an impressive foothold in the collective psyche.  I think its time I
> put things in perspective for people who are requesting that Fedora as
> a community project make the investment in this sort of thing.
> 
> There seems to be a general lack of understanding that the Ubuntu LTS
> exists ONLY because there is a business entity which is attempting to
> make money from selling support services around the LTS release. That
> entity is called Canonical. Canonical has a direct and compelling
> business interest in selling support services for the Ubuntu LTS
> release.
> That LTS offering is NOT a community volunteer coordinated offering.
> This not so subtle fact is very important to consider when making a
> request to see a similar offering in the Fedora space.  Especially
> considering that Fedora Legacy was charted to feel this very void.
> Here's what we learned, demand doesn't match willingness to
> contribute.  And thus, business opportunity is born.
> 


Fair enough.  I wasn't aware of the commercial aspect of the Ubuntu LTS
and that is important to understand.

Just to be sure, though, your thesis argument is: community supported
software can do many things (ie. invent a kernel, reverse engineer usb
cameras etc), but community can not support an operating system for 2
years?  I think that people are falling back on the 'fedora legacy
failed' argument, but I don't think it applies.  

I think that having one LTS release could be made to work.  Here is an
additional proposal

Proposal:

After the LTS release, wait 1 year (instead of 6 months) for the next
Fedora release.  This would allow for:

a) 1 deeper dev cycle every x shallow dev cycles
b) a longer time to let the LTS 'steep' and become mature, focusing core
group attention on the current release instead of having them chomp at
the bit for the next go.
c) mitigate the 'many simultaneous releases to support' issue

David