On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 11:20:49 AM CET Matthew Miller wrote:
1. I believe in the value of releases, for the project and for end
users — as opposed to a "rolling release" system. But major releases
are a lot of work across the project — not just release engineering,
but marketing, ambassadors, design, docs, and others. One possible
way to reduce this is to have major releases less frequently. I want
a cadence that gives us the highest return on effort. Maybe that's
six months — and maybe it isn't.
I believe in both -- and I believe Fedora could have both -- "rolling
release" and "major releases" as a separate "products".
There are people in the wild who will never use Fedora as the workstation
system because they seek for rolling distro (while Rawhide is _almost_
there). It is sad we loose those users.
I suggested one release a year as an alternative to the current two
I don't have a strong opinion here ... but I personally like the idea
about annual "major release" cycle (supporting one stable fedora for 2Y+).
The proposals previously in this thread are ideas aimed at
users with an annual release from a marketing/ambassadors/design, etc.,
point of view, but also addressing our upstream stakeholders' desire to
have Fedora ship their software fast. (For example, GNOME.)
Would the 'rolling release' approach help WRT upstream stakeholders, even
if we had longer major release cycle?