last minute f21 change -- workstation dropping installable tree

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 04:28:14PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > That's only with the more involved "refactor the compose process"
> > approach. Is there a reason that everything used in the compose
> > process has to end up in the mirrors? For Cloud, everything we want
> > is under "Cloud/Images".
> We need to ship what we use to make what we ship, in F22 we can look at
> refactoring things and put the cloud install tree into alt space. but
> we will need to ship it.

I don't understand something here. Or else, I understand and I just
disagree. We need to make our processes and tools open, transparent,
and available — but that doesn't mean everything we use needs to be
shipped to mirrors and end-users. That's especially the case for
intermediate results — basically temp files that happen to be used in
the construction of the final artifacts.

If we decide to go to different lifecycles or other more radical
changes for the products, we'll likely need separate trees, and
possibly more. That's one of the reasons I didn't argue when the
duplicate-trees approach was proposed. But if we're not going to do it,
I don't see a downside in removing the scaffolding used to build the
images (or, not copying from the build area to staging, or not copying
from staging to mirrors).

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader