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 close > 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. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
