"Tick-tock" release cadence?

[Christopher]

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbyszek at in.waw.pl> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:39:35AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > [tick tock] would mean alternating between concentrating on release
> > features and on release engineering and QA process and tooling. During
> > the "tick", we'd focus on new features and minimize unrelated rel-eng
> > change. During the "tock", we'd focus on the tools, and minimize change
> > that might affect that.
> This view is very engineering- and internal-project- centric. If you
> only mean tools developed in Fedora and for Fedora, please say so.
>
> If you mean everything, then this plan doesn't sound good. Delaying
> features for a couple of months works with anaconda, but not with any
> independent external project which is going to accumulate features
> irrespectively of what Fedora is doing.
> In case of large projects this is bad for two reasons:
> 1. a jump twice as big when it is finally taken
> 2. in the "tock" release, wasted effort is spent on backporting fixes
>    while upstream moves on.
>
> And of course Fedora is not "First" anymore.
>
> I can see how this kind of cadence might be useful for some projects
> or packages, but they should decide on their own, independently.
>
>
As a user, I love the idea of stabilizing Fedora tools on every other
release. As a developer and a user, I like the idea of those releases
labeled differently, so that individual packages can adopt those semantics
if it makes sense for them, independently. Basically, the name or release
"type" (not "LTS", but whatever label is appropriate), could be a semantic
hook for packages to follow or not.

--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20141204/249f5c39/attachment.html>