On 08/28/2011 03:14 PM, Peter Linnell wrote: > On 08/28/2011 02:29 PM, Bruno Mahé wrote: >> On 08/26/2011 12:35 PM, Andrew Bayer wrote: >>> ...we should probably do this. I know James had thoughts on what Ubuntu >>> releases we should support, and that Bruno's got thoughts on >>> Mageia/OpenSUSE, but we should probably codify the list somewhere. Let's >>> hear what platforms you all think we should support for 0.2.0, and then >>> we'll vote on 'em to build out the list. >>> >>> A. >>> >> Top tier (the one we can't break): >> * Latest CentOS (6.0) >> * Latest Ubuntu LTS (10.04) >> * Latest OpenSUSE (11.4) >> * Latest Fedora (15) >> >> >> 2nd tier (the ones without enough interest to be in the top tier, but >> enough volunteers to maintain it): >> * Latest Mageia (I volunteer to maintain it) >> >> >> The top tier means we can't check in any patch that will break any of >> these OSes. It also means we can't upgrade a component of BigTop if that >> component cannot be built on any of these OSes. >> Regarding the 2nd tier, it means not having a build is not a blocker for >> a release and it is fine to have a commit breaking Mageia's support. >> Although it does not mean we should break it on purpose either. The more >> time I spend fixing Mageia, the less time I spend on other things. >> >> B. > Hi, > > What about SLES 11 ? > > Peter
That was my thoughts on what we should support, not an authoritative one. I didn't put SLES or RHEL because I am not sure of the license implications: * Should the OSes in the top tier be available to anyone to fix? * If only a few people have access to them, wouldn't releases depend on these people? (in which case, they could be in the second tier) * Is there any Apache restriction on that matter?
