reviving Fedora Legacy

Patrice Dumas pertusus at free.fr
Mon Oct 13 16:40:16 UTC 2008


On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:26:22AM -0400, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:05:08 +0200
> Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> wrote:
> 
> > In that case skipping some of the fedora release, like doing the LTS
> > stuff only each year may help.
> 
> 
> before solving the "how many" problem...
> lets be realistic

I agree, but the issue of space may be a show stopper for some, so
better think about it.

> 1) Making every release LTS is not feasible, there's just not going to
> be enough manpower for that (history has shown that) for now at least.

Agreed.

> 2) I don't think users would even really demand such a beast

I don't know in general, but I know that I stopped proposing people that
were not absolute power users to use fedora, even if they were fluent
enough because of this issue. So fedora lost at least 2 users. But they
were not users likely to contribute, so they don't weight that much.

> 3) The volunteer base is a bit thin; current fedora volunteers tend to
> work on the latest version (or maybe two). In fact, so do many users.

There are only 2 versions... But it is true I don't think there are that 
many packagers interested in LTS, for the user, I am not sure. But I
also think that the amount of work for the 2 first year is not high, no
updates, for most packages is right. There are indeed some big and
complex core packages that may be problematic, we'll see.

> I would suggest focusing on first getting ONE such LTS release going.
> Figure out a plan on how to get out of it first (communication wise
> etc) in case interest isn't what you expect, and how to monitor the
> health. With that I suspect the fedora leadership will be happy to
> endorse it happily.

My suggestion is first to communicate only to the packagers that they
can update the packages, look whether there are some that are updated,
especially those in @code and @base, and especially when there is a
knowledge that something is broken or a security issue, create a SIG if
it looks that there is support, discuss the details, see how many
participants, make the rules and only afterwards communicate something 
to the exterior.

> Do one. Get that working. Don't even think about multiple until you
> have gotten one down. You'll learn so much that it's not worth planning
> beyond that.

Indeed, maybe the best would be to start with F9 such that the
infrastructure doesn't have to be revived.

--
Pat




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list