Fedora-Council / tickets

The Fedora Council uses this to record ongoing work and to track issues which need a specific resolution.  |  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council

#141 Fedora 27 Modular Server

Created a month ago by langdon
Modified a month ago

The Server WG/SIG decided to activate the contingency plan for the F27 Server release replacing the Modular Server with the Traditional Server. As a result, and as the Modularity Objective Owner, I requested that the council weigh in on this decision.

Much discussion resulted in the proposal below. However, the proposal was not agreed/disagreed upon because a) lack of time and b) beta release readiness meeting may have an impact. We did, however, want to keep the issue on the "front burner" and elicit comments, hence this ticket.

Proposal: Modularity is an important Fedora priority, and having it be a non-sidecar option is important to Red Hat as a stakeholder. Since Modularity allows us to decouple the Modular Server release from the GA date, we'd like to take advantage of that and ask the Server SIG and Modularity WG to come up with an alternate schedule landing as an official Edition about a month later.

I'm +1 to this. I think we'll actually be able to make more news impact this way, and it doesn't hold up the main GA schedule while still allowing us time to be confident in Modular Server.

One concern is that after already dumping QA from one release right into the frying pan of the next one, it'd be nice for them to be able to catch their breath a bit (let alone work on tooling and other non-release concerns), so it'd be super helpful if we can get QA volunteers from Modularity and Server.

I've reviewed the meeting logs and agree with @mattdm. Delaying the modular release by a bit is the best compromise here. We still likely need to verify with rel-eng that we can do that.

As a point of clarification, after the Modular Server GA occurs will it's lifecycle be forever shifted by a month or would it fall into lockstep with the rest of the Fedora 27 release?

Note that in the meeting, I think everyone was okay with this plan, except Josh couldn't make it due to illness — but he's in favor above. Given that and given the urgency, I'm going to call for quick lazy consensus on this: like, council members, if you are opposed please weigh in before the go/no-go meeting tomorrow.

On @jwboyer's question: I'd like to see how it goes, particularly in terms of press reaction. I have the theory that we'll actually get an attention boost from the separate releases.

I'm also interested in the idea of, once the first few modularity releases get the kinks out, settling down to a once yearly server release.

+1 to the proposal and re-evaluation of staggering edition release after we see the impact here

+1 to the proposal

+1 (I think my vote counts for this)

a month ago

Metadata Update from @mattdm:
- Issue close_status updated to: approved
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

Login to comment on this ticket.