Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Since we slipped the F44 release, the EOL date in /etc/os-release is now out of sync with https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-44/f-44-key-tasks.html , which says "Fedora Linux 44 End of Life Wed 2027-06-02". /etc/os-release says 2027-05-19 . Bodhi also has the wrong date and needs updating. The schedule also says "This is a changeable date and currently based off the Early Target Date", which I think is wrong - it should say "currently based off Final target date #2", I think. But I don't know if the date is wrong or the text is wrong or both, I forget the calculation.
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.