Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
I reached out to RHEL last year to see if they are interested in adopting a predictable cycle of releases, and collaborating around them. They did not respond to the email. I've heard it said informally that they will "never" do that. In fact, I think RHEL could be persuaded to join such a movement, but only if we have won over almost everyone else first! That's why I've tried to include Novell in the discussion (they are more interested, but still not takers to the idea).Manoj Srivastava wrote:I also think that we should be looking at when we freeze not merely at when a derived distro freezes, but when major system components release, and when top level sister distributions freeze (we'll get far more benefit for Debian users were we to sync up with fedora/rhel; and have more clout with upstream, especially if Ubuntu sync's up with Debian/red hat as well).Ack. It makes *mucH* more sense for use to keep in sync with fedora/rhel than with Ubuntu. Especially Fedora tries out the very latest funky stuff, it is often really worth the work to have a look what they're doing. At the end this will help Ubuntu, too - if they manage to change their freeze time to an appropriate date similar to the one of Debian.
Agreeing an approach between Debian and Ubuntu would be a very significant first step. I believe we could then bring in many of the smaller distributions, followed by Novell, and ultimately Red Hat too.