What does extended F30 cycle mean for F29?

Discussion:

Kalev Lember

2018-11-28 07:13:51 UTC

If F31 is delayed by 6 months and F30 is supported for 6 months longer,
does it mean F29 *also* automatically gets a longer cycle since it by
policy becomes EOL when F31 is out + 1 month?

Can we EOL F29 6 months before F31 is out to not have *two* long term
branches to maintain?

--
Kalev
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- ***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/***@lists.fedo

Peter Robinson

2018-11-28 08:45:55 UTC

Permalink

Post by Kalev Lember
If F31 is delayed by 6 months and F30 is supported for 6 months longer,
does it mean F29 *also* automatically gets a longer cycle since it by
policy becomes EOL when F31 is out + 1 month?
Can we EOL F29 6 months before F31 is out to not have *two* long term
branches to maintain?

So going back to memory of what we did in the F-21 cycle, we EOLed
F-19 at the 13 months line and then F-20 continued until a month after
F-22 was out.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- ***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/***@list

Tom Hughes

2018-11-28 08:55:28 UTC

Permalink

Post by Peter Robinson

So going back to memory of what we did in the F-21 cycle, we EOLed
F-19 at the 13 months line and then F-20 continued until a month after
F-22 was out.

End of life is not technically defined as a given number of months but
rather it is defined as one month after the release of the next but one
release so unless that definition was changed that is what would happen:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle#End_of_Life_.28EOL.29

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (***@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- ***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.

Matthew Miller

2018-11-28 17:06:39 UTC

Permalink

Post by Peter Robinson

So going back to memory of what we did in the F-21 cycle, we EOLed
F-19 at the 13 months line and then F-20 continued until a month after
F-22 was out.

I'd support doing this again.

--
Matthew Miller
<***@fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- ***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/***@lists.fedorapro

Kevin Kofler

2018-11-28 17:18:19 UTC

Permalink

Post by Peter Robinson
So going back to memory of what we did in the F-21 cycle, we EOLed
F-19 at the 13 months line and then F-20 continued until a month after
F-22 was out.

No, we did not! F19 was supported until a month after F21 was released:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/21/Schedule ← F21 release 2014-12-09
https://fedoramagazine.org/fedora-19-eol-01-06-2015/ ← F19 EOL 2015-01-06
and that it what needs to happen to meet the promises we made to users. The
whole point of the support cycle is to allow upgrading to Fn+2 directly.
EOLing the release early because Fn+2 was delayed totally defeats the point.

If we are not prepared to do that, we simply must not prolong the F30 cycle
arbitrarily. I don't see why we need to do that to begin with.
Infrastructure work can be done in parallel with distribution development.
Extending the release cycle is only useful if it actually leads to extended
support times for the releases!

Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- ***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/l

Artur Iwicki

2018-11-29 12:06:48 UTC

Permalink

No, we did NOT do that.

A quick search on the devel list archives shows that F19 was released in July 2013:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/***@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SSLJL6ZJC7M7TAOPNHJY7UAS7MA66PMR/
...and EOL'd on in January 2015:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/***@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/OKQNYF6AL5WVHIQB7G3MLIYFUXO37U2Z/
...which gives F19 a 19-month support window.

I wasn't a packager back then, so it may be easy for me to say this, but either way - I agree with Kevin Koffer. The current Release Life Cycle states that release N is supported for one month after N+2 is released. This is a promise we make to our users, and breaking this promise would be a very nasty thing to do. If we arrive at the conclusion that we don't have the manpower to extend F29's support window past the usual 13 months, then I argue that we should NOT prolong the F30 development cycle.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- ***@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-***@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@