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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
