Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V4

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

I've just published a fourth version[1] of the ELN proposal. With a
lot of input from Miro Hrončok, I think I've finally been able to
clarify some of the points that we were getting hung up on.

Changes in this version of the proposal[2]:

* Improve our explanation of why we are doing ELN in the first place
* Clarify the relationship with Rawhide
* Better describe what happens if packages don't build on ELN
* Explain our plan for when to use conditionals (this was getting a
larger share of the conversation than it warranted because we didn't
do a good job of explaining that they should be the exception and not
the rule)
* Clarify that the time limit on PRs is only for determining if the
maintainer is responsive. If they reply, the timer is cleared.
* Fixed the question about upstream features to make it clear that
what we meant is that new features should go upstream first, not be
implemented as a fork in ELN
* Added a section explaining how we will deal with side-tags
* Make it clear that we don't want to diverge wherever possible and
that any planned divergence should be discussed with the ELN SIG ahead
of time
* Cleaned up the contingency plan section.

I hope that these changes will make our position more clear. Thank you
to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. I think the
feedback has been very valuable and I sincerely appreciate it.



[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ELN_Buildroot_and_Compose
[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes%2FELN_Buildroot_and_C...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQGzBAEBCAAdFiEEhQqd0dvyrMxvxJSRRduFpWgobREFAl6LpNgACgkQRduFpWgo
> bRH4MAwAu1INM0mplL1yQiW2DMS148VubU5DkxRbaE3biZTvw5WzzbpxwpXr+nFp
> eZf7IUyn5HCdtCAk1TQ4ga/TuV5VsaEEZ+a9p8PZfs4XTEMGpB7olP0Z8Jq1PWwn
> EM6+4BAUWJ4JS7Q1+/CnEkUHA+1ZVeAzeb5bfSlcae2Vgx6evQMB4rEqAXdr16Qk
> 3Hi082+4SutmBv67cRA/JdRZmvUaHYtS4y5DrWAXOS23k8SHUCT/2O2f7NRPAoG/
> f+04nG5JyUePY64pnVtDnsVMwETWiNSSs4V1dbKYe9Fj5H/jbvKIsvo8AWxw4BAq
> rXCSIB3wMf08eM2KTaLvk0x+cz2BiSEZEDVdceffVXMwnUZulu/oeYDKdQg9OoHW
> IQJbMoASgxRUXH1ZiMy8Q3SgQHvcu/YLmjS+djlVakLunhW7NfQjZB7txMyDi0PY
> Hwn32C1kXnaoBJds4zB4QpWiJy5wI82CRL92Zvz0kiRPiO9TMCuj+t5kLZVmVTnI
> 8ShPIeos
> =+lwN
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:53 PM Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  I've just published a fourth version[1] of the ELN proposal. With
> a
>  lot of input from Miro Hrončok, I think I've finally been able to
>  clarify some of the points that we were getting hung up on. 
Up to this point, we've been a little vague on what "there will
eventually be a way to maintain a fork of your package that will go
into RHEL" actually means. I can finally make this clearer:

- From now until RHEL 9 Alpha ships, work that is intended for
inclusion in RHEL 9 should be contributed to Fedora Rawhide (later,
F34 branch). After Alpha ships, a branch of CentOS Stream will open
that will accept contributions towards RHEL 9 Beta.

I'm pretty excited about this, myself.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQGzBAEBCAAdFiEEhQqd0dvyrMxvxJSRRduFpWgobREFAl6MzJQACgkQRduFpWgo
> bRHp0Av9G5HQD5rdP9JQOtmk2bWfCIXLF0fabZrjPZogIyDVEeEfNQdyledQQnDQ
> RQWpwVP9nYeAjYAOSSAasSnN3jJ71uc08IOYQbHs1hSW+FSM06RNraan4r2rhYOj
> /fWBtwZGABDMLzNrwZqmD6xDtk93yFTo4TWIUWiOwjr02TIIL8A/xiat7TsMHJtS
> 90INry2rQ3qi5OeTTTHQf6bQPHP8FRNTIcgmispObJchHtAPbUKcn6n45b/L5mB6
> 94GVpYf56J3MLoJp2r5TbIdxuJMQSpVwPpk2AbjbWdAQA2SR8LSLU9+HAINiTKQV
> qBmOpHFGTK4e8+VE5W7pqo/sswDminRlCrXd/VQcx6C0jg/AWEQ21JG/DcRvDquP
> n8rMyMf7SKkpj2os3y63MfNXvbm3BHs1BT7znaLbopZG0GxorPsSE/MvwQX9HVka
> nXEGZn7pqXaUhOLWT8+hp0MSQUhkb2j0CVxESsM6AE6u/HGonBR8+T6cDpvP8/EO
> V1QcdQ6M
> =nb+r
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----