On Thu, 2015-05-28 at 14:39 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > Do you think the tech could stabilize enough to obviate the first > reason? The 6-month workflow cadence remains a good idea, of course, > but could result in a major offline upgrade, instead of an entire > new distribution.
I think we're already at the point where -- at least for Fedora Workstation (not sure about Server/Cloud), and except for infrastructure issues -- we can stop branding our releases with a version number, and simply have a particularly big offline update every six months. Behind-the-scenes, we still have the six-month cycle, but this is hidden to users. They get Fedora and it's just Fedora, not Fedora 21 or Fedora 22. People stop complaining about the 13-months of support that isn't long enough for them: we wouldn't have that short support window anymore, instead there is *indefinite* support so long as you take your monthly QAed updates pack (five small updates packs, then a big updates pack, then five smaller ones, then a big one, ...). This is the model Windows is moving to, and it makes a lot of sense to me. Michael -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
