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

Re: Feature proposal: Extended Life Cycle Support



On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 06:20:38 +0000 (UTC), Matej Cepl <mcepl redhat com>
wrote:
> Jeroen van Meeuwen, Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:30:46 +0200:
> 
>> On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:13:14 +0200, Julian Aloofi
>>> To be honest, I think environments that work like that won't use Fedora
>>> anyway if it wasn't supported for at least three, let's say two and a
>>> half, years.
>> 
>> Having to agree with your general statement -not necessarily the exact
>> period- I think neither of us can commit to extending even a single
>> release's life cycle to that extent right now. We'll have to start
>> somewhere, as you'll agree, and so we're thinking of starting out here;
>> 3 releases to maintain in parallel, for those that opt-in, excluding
>> EPEL (which has long term support in all it's aspects already).
> 
> The problem I have with this whole project is that nobody explained me 
> well, why you folks interested in this don't join CentOS project? NIH?
> 

The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of approximately
three years -not a steady release cycle of three years but that's what it
turns out to be. This disqualifies the distribution(s) as desktop Linux
distributions, as desktops tend to need to run the latest and greatest for
as far the latest and greatest lets them.

Does that make sense?

Kind regards,

Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip


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