On Monday, November 05, 2012 06:56 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
mike cloaked píše v Ne 04. 11. 2012 v 21:44 +0000:
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Jiri Eischmann <jeischma@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
This is a very valid argument. I understand this is a devel
list, so we should stay on the technical level, but if we
discuss such broad changes that affect the whole project, we
should also take into account other aspects.
Switching to rolling release would have a *huge* negative
impact on marketing! It's releases what makes the fuzz and
their announcements get beyond our current user base. We would
have no release parties, no codenames. We would lose the
product. I wonder what impact it would have on Fedora adoption
by cloud providers. I think it's much more understandable not
only for them, but also for their customers to take Fedora 17
than some monthly build.
Does anyone have any reliable statistics about the number of users who
feel that release parties and codenames are important to them?
Release parties and codenames were just examples. It's about the buzz
around releases. You can check Google Trends where you find peaks in
number of searches for Fedora after every release.
That just means our marketing is virtually inexistant between two releases.
A rolling release model would mean that our buzz would be lower than the
peak values, but it would be constant.
Depending on how you look at it, it could be a net win.
--
Mathieu
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
