On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 05:51:33PM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote: > I believe in both -- and I believe Fedora could have both -- "rolling > release" and "major releases" as a separate "products". > > There are people in the wild who will never use Fedora as the workstation > system because they seek for rolling distro (while Rawhide is _almost_ > there). It is sad we loose those users. I have a two-pronged approach here. First, I very frequently hear this: "Fedora should have an LTS — or be a rolling release." These two things are very far apart in actual implication, but they have one big thing in common, and when pressed, it usually comes down to: "Upgrades are painful and scary." We have been working really hard on making upgrades fast and seamless, so we need to deliver that message to users (and of course work to make further improvements). Second, yeah, for the enthusiasts and people who really _do_ want the *bleeding* edge and do not mind all that entails, let's improve Rawhide (and/or Bikeshed). > > The proposals previously in this thread are ideas aimed at presenting > > users with an annual release from a marketing/ambassadors/design, etc., > > point of view, but also addressing our upstream stakeholders' desire to > > have Fedora ship their software fast. (For example, GNOME.) > Would the 'rolling release' approach help WRT upstream stakeholders, even > if we had longer major release cycle? Maybe? I think the value in getting the upstream software into Fedora is getting it to more mainstream users, and I think rolling-Fedora via Rawhide/Bikeshed would still be niche. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
