Bug 2459249
| Summary: | F44 EOL date out of sync with schedule | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Adam Williamson (Red Hat non-Fedora) <awilliam> |
| Component: | fedora-release | Assignee: | Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh> |
| Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 44 | CC: | alciregi, fedoraproject, jspaleta, kevin, kparal, mboddu, pbrobinson, samyak.jn11, sgallagh, thrcka, zbyszek |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | AcceptedFreezeException | ||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | --- | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | Type: | Bug | |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 2362360 | ||
|
Description
Adam Williamson (Red Hat non-Fedora)
2026-04-17 19:02:38 UTC
Proposing for a Final FE as it'd be nice if the EOL date in the release images was as accurate as we can manage. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the end date dependent upon the F46 schedule, not the F44 one? We don't slip out the EOL unless F46 slips, I thought. the actual official final date is dependent on f46 release, yeah, but AIUI we have an estimate in the schedule that is (or should be?) based on the current release target. I think it assumes N+2 will come out exactly 52 weeks later and thus EOL for N will be 2 or 4 or whatever it is weeks after *that*? I thought we "absorb" the delay in the current release, so that subsequent releases do not shift. (Or we if didn't do that officially, I think we should. Releases should be at a stable wrt. the year.) +3 in https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/2119 , marking accepted. Zbigniew, you might be right, I honestly don't know for sure. Looking at the schedule repo, I *think* we adjusted the end date upon delays. E.g. https://pagure.io/fedora-pgm/schedule/c/6bd870c4e0800d944ae446da8370c1de95a400ba?branch=main moved the FinishDate by two weeks. Other commits in that repo seem to do the same thing. Nevertheless, I think we should abandon this practice and *not* shift the EOL date. I think maintaining approximate the same-weeek-of-year-release-schedule is more important than maintaining a fixed number of weeks in the lifetime of a release. Thoughts? (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #6) > Nevertheless, I think we should abandon this practice and *not* shift the > EOL date. > I think maintaining approximate the same-weeek-of-year-release-schedule is > more important > than maintaining a fixed number of weeks in the lifetime of a release. That seems like a saner practice and less of a maintenance burden for multiple parties involved. +1 to that. Opened https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3597 to make this official. |