On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 09:04:11AM -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> So, first, putting together a release is a lot of work. If
we're
> stepping on the toes of the previous releases, are we wasting some of
> that work?
I don't see the relevance of that observation. A new version,
whenever it is released will impact the uptake of the previous. If
I'm saying in this case, we released it before the previous version had
a chance to make as much impact as it could have.
> Second, from a press/PR point of view, I think we get less total
press
> from having twice-a-year releases than we would from just having one
> big one. When it's so frequent, it doesn't feel like news.
Basing our release strategy on the fickleness of press coverage is
subjective and isn't going to do give any consistent results.
But I didn't say this was due to fickleness. In any case, a release is
*definitely* a marketing event as well as a technical one, and PR is a
legitimate input into planning them.
> Third, the modularity initiative and the "generational
core" give
> us an opportunity to rethink how we are doing releases entirely.
Kevin's comment raised some important concerns about this.
I don't want to misrepresent Kevin's concerns, but as I understand
them, they're with modularity in conception rather than to do with
scheduling. I guess there's an intersection in that if we can't do
modularity at all it makes the particular release cycle I suggested
much harder to do — but overall I think it's a separate conversation.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader