Am 06.11.2012 19:48, schrieb Peter Lemenkov:
Hello All.
2012/11/6 Matthieu Gautier mgaut...@fedoraproject.org:
For example, if we start from Fedora20 at beginning of 2014:
- Fedora20(jan 2014) is a stable release. (Fedora18 eol, actual way of
doing)
- Fedora21Preview(jul 2014) is an
Hello all,
I'm not a Fedora developer, nor package maintainer. I'm a French Fedora
Ambassador for a long time. (I should say I was cause I don't do to
many things last time, just wake up every 6 months for Fedora releases
and other events).
I'm also a developer but that's not about Fedora.
While
On 11/06/2012 10:34 AM, Matthieu Gautier wrote:
Hello all,
I'm not a Fedora developer, nor package maintainer. I'm a French Fedora
Ambassador for a long time. (I should say I was cause I don't do to
many things last time, just wake up every 6 months for Fedora releases
and other events).
I'm
Hello
2012/11/6 Jason Brooks jbro...@redhat.com:
For those who upgrade each release (or sooner), a 6mo life span for the
latest release wouldn't matter. Those who don't want to upgrade every six
months might well appreciate the two year life span.
They should pay for RHEL.
--
With best
Le 06/11/2012 19:48, Peter Lemenkov a écrit :
Hello All.
2012/11/6 Matthieu Gautier mgaut...@fedoraproject.org:
For example, if we start from Fedora20 at beginning of 2014:
- Fedora20(jan 2014) is a stable release. (Fedora18 eol, actual way of
doing)
- Fedora21Preview(jul 2014) is an
2012/11/6 Matthieu Gautier mgaut...@fedoraproject.org:
So you not a maintainer but you still suggesting that we, maintainers,
should do 2 times more job by supporting several simultaneous Fedora
versions instead of 3 right now for more than two years. And that's
all just because you think it's
On 11/06/2012 10:55 AM, Matthieu Gautier wrote:
No, I never suggest that. Preview versions have a timelife of 6mo
instead of 12.
Stable version have a lifetime of 24mo (12mo for regular updates)
instead of 12.
The cycle would have to go: stable, preview, preview, stable, and so on
to avoid
Le 06/11/2012 20:05, Peter Lemenkov a écrit :
2012/11/6 Matthieu Gautier mgaut...@fedoraproject.org:
So you not a maintainer but you still suggesting that we, maintainers,
should do 2 times more job by supporting several simultaneous Fedora
versions instead of 3 right now for more than two
oddly this looks a lot like the Ubuntu release cycle if you replace stable
with LTS
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Jason Brooks jbro...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/06/2012 10:55 AM, Matthieu Gautier wrote:
No, I never suggest that. Preview versions have a timelife of 6mo
instead of 12.
2012/11/6 Matthieu Gautier mgaut...@fedoraproject.org:
Hum.. It should be some misunderstanding somewhere :
Definitely. Please stop talking about things you have no idea about.
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 22:24 +0300, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
2012/11/6 Matthieu Gautier mgaut...@fedoraproject.org:
Hum.. It should be some misunderstanding somewhere :
Definitely. Please stop talking about things you have no idea about.
You can also just show him where he is wrong rather
: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 9:19:41 PM
Subject: Re: New release cycle proposal (was Rolling release model philosophy
(was ...))
Le 06/11/2012 20:05, Peter Lemenkov a écrit :
2012/11/6 Matthieu Gautier mgaut...@fedoraproject.org:
So you not a maintainer but you still suggesting that we
On 11/06/2012 07:54 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
One have to say the hard truth - only the latest fedora release is supported by
many maintainers because that's what they/we use.
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team
Please read and follow the mailinglist guidelines...
JBG
--
devel
Le 06/11/2012 20:19, Mark Bidewell a écrit :
oddly this looks a lot like the Ubuntu release cycle if you replace
stable with LTS
Ubuntu LTS in about 5 years lifetime. Other releases have a lifetime of
18mo.
For now, there is 5 maintained ubuntu versions at the same time (the
older is from 2008)
14 matches
Mail list logo
