On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 19:07, Ben Cotton <bcot...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:22 PM Adam Williamson > <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > > So to boil this down into a representative question: when we are doing > > the Fedora 34 Go/No-Go meeting in ~four months' time, how do we decide > > whether to release "Fedora CoreOS 34"? > > > This question is relevant to my interests. > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:36 PM Adam Williamson > <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > > Note that if you go to getfedora.org and click on CoreOS *right now*, > > it offers you a Fedora 32-based CoreOS. This is the kind of thing that > > is kinda fine so long as it's an Emerging Edition. It would *not*, > > IMHO, be fine for an Edition. If we accept CoreOS as an edition and two > > months after Fedora 34 is "released", our "stable" CoreOS is still > > Fedora 33-based, that seems like the sort of thing that would look bad. > > I agree. I understand the reasoning, but I'd really like to see FCOS > align with the rest of the schedule or at least develop a clear and > succinct explanation of why it's delayed so that the public and the > tech press can easily understand. >
It is hard for something that releases every 2 weeks to align with the rest of the schedule, we have the same struggle with the container images. It feels odd to have to wait 6 months to introduce changes when you release a new version every couple weeks. > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:31 PM Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I would personally rather see Fedora CoreOS pulled *back* into the > > fold more as an Edtion > > From a program management perspective, I've largely closed my eyes and > gone "la la la" when it comes to FCOS, in part because it is so > separate from what we know as Fedora. Making FCOS work more like what > we know as Fedora would certainly be helpful from my perspective, but > at the same time there are technical challenges to that. And maybe > what FCOS does from a distro-building standpoint is more like what we > should move toward. Maybe not. > > In any case, part of the work to be done here, if the Change is > approved, is for me to figure out how to include FCOS in some of the > program management work. > > I wonder if it would be better to target this for Fedora 35, with some > of the work starting now. Given the work it took to get IoT into the > fold (which, as Adam noted, is a smaller effort than FCOS), Fedora 34 > feels pretty optimistic here. > I am open to moving this to F3X but I currently don't have a clear idea of what is required to be an Edition. If I could get a list of things that needs to be done, that would help consider if this is doable or not. > > -- > Ben Cotton > He / Him / His > Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream > Red Hat > TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
