On Fri, 2016-12-09 at 11:03 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
So, *did* you feel that the F25 cycle felt compressed? If we're
enough to the theoretical-world above that we feel like we can do, say,
four month cycles to stay on track without experiencing (particular)
pain, maybe that's okay.
This seems like an impossible question to answer. Our release cycles
are entirely arbitrary; they're precisely what we say they are. So I'm
not sure how to say whether one "feels compressed", or understand how
"four month cycles" would make us "stay on track". *What* track would
we be staying on?
When I mentioned shorter cycles, I wasn't suggesting we do all the same
stuff we do now, only in a smaller space of time. That would be awful.
I was honestly thinking more about far more automated and less
significant 'release events'. But really, my larger point is that what
you're proposing sounded like a large amount of work for (particularly)
release engineering, but came with no clear justification beyond "I
have an unquantifiable feeling that we can get better press coverage if
we do one release a year", which is extremely thin. At a bare minimum,
any significant release cycle change needs to come with a ground-up and
coherent justification of why *that* is the best way, right now, for
the Fedora project to produce little baby Fedoras.
It also seems bizarre to be having a 'release' conversation that
doesn't really seem to tie in at all with what's going on with
Modularity and Factory 2.0...since I thought those were the primary
drivers of planned major change to how we deliver Fedora.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net