Meeting minutes for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2015-01-14)

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

----- Original Message -----

> On 16 January 2015 at 01:31, Bohuslav Kabrda < bkabrda at redhat.com > wrote:

> > ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > > Honza Horak wrote:
> 
> > > > * Fedora Rings (hhorak, 12:03:21)
> 
> > > [snip]
> 
> > > > * IDEA: definition of ring 1 is a minimal set of packages that give
> 
> > > > you a functional system, with some sort of approval (hhorak,
> 
> > > > 13:31:21)
> 
> > > > * IDEA: ring 1 should be self-hosted -- because you want to build very
> 
> > > > solid important packages using very solid important packages
> 
> > > > (hhorak, 13:31:21)
> 
> > >
> 
> > > In other words, Fedora Core all over again? Been there, done that…
> 
> > >
> 
> > > Kevin Kofler
> 

> > Not all of us were there. So what's the problem with that?
> 

> Fedora Core was seen by many developers as "You either work in the small team
> of Red Hatters and get stuff done" or "You are a volunteer or someone at Red
> Hat who isn't part of the cool group and don't get stuff done."

> If you were an "Outsider" and worked on a package that all of a sudden was
> "core" you found your version no longer was the one being worked on.

> Inside of the Core team it was a giant pressure cooker of "We have to get
> this out the f'ing door now and don't have time to talk."

> So it took 3 releases (5 if you count RHL 8 and RHL 9) for "Extras" to be
> actually accepted as being something that could be done, and it took 3-4
> more releases before Core could be unwound and "outside developers" to be
> considered "essential developers".

> Because this proposal is tone deaf to that history it can come across as
> insulting in various ways.

> --
> Stephen J Smoogen.

Ok, I think that there may be some misunderstanding happening here. The proposal as we discussed it was, that (as our WG sees it): 

* ring 0, ring 1 and ring 2 are the content built in Fedora's Koji == official Fedora repos 
* ring 0 is JeOS as defined by Matthew in the .Next proposal 
* ring 1 contains the packages that are "critical" in the sense that they are used to compose LiveCDs of our products/cloud images 
* ring 2 contains anything that anyone wants to build as an "extension" to rings 0 and 1 (and it's still in Koji as it is right now, e.g. bazillion of python/ruby/perl extension packages, applications that aren't on LiveCDs etc) 

We meant to categorize packages that are currently in Fedora (and we also wanted to extend the ring proposal to go beyond that with rings 3 and 4 - Copr/Playground and other stuff, but this was actually not discussed into detail yet). 
Please note, that this proposal is absolutely not about imposing some restrictions on who can/should maintain what. It's really just a categorization of packages based on our WG's perception of importance to Fedora. 
The only practical change that we suggested is that packages in rings 0 and 1 should get some more QE/integration tests to better guarantee stability. These packages are defined implicitly by their presence on LiveCDs/cloud image, there's no intention of creating a "cool group". 

I hope this explains the matter. If this still feels wrong, I'd like to continue this discussion, as it's not our intention to make someone feel excluded or unimportant. 

Slavek 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150116/fab6577e/attachment-0001.html>