On 12/09/2016 03:26 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 03:19:58PM -0500, langdon wrote:
>> Langdon is sitting right next to me right now and I'm going to tag him
>> in for more on Modularity.
> them. We can also decide when a "release" makes sense based on
> marketing or other considerations and just "pull the trigger" on
> that day. Or we could allow users to decide for themselves by opting
> in to a "rolling release" style of deployment.
This all sounds suspiciously like what I said would be the ideal. How
far from that, in the actual world, are we going to be with Modularity
when we get to, say, October 2017?
Well, I think it depends. We need a lot of community help to convert
things to modules, integrate tests, etc. We also need factory-2 to be
fully online (or at least mostly). We also are not completely sure how
small we can make the "gen-core". The folks working on gen-core are
gonna make it super small, but then modularity is gonna come and add a
bunch of stuff that we need to make available to applications until we
have the opportunity to repackage (e.g. if you have a lib and it is
packaged with a command line tool, even if the lib can be parallel
installed, the command line tool can't, so we have to re-package).
Basically, the gen-core will be ~equivalent to a distribution that we
are shrinking by pulling content into the applications.
So, making the "decision to release" based on marketing will likely be
possible. The impact of that decision on users being "no biggie" will
probably take longer. I know that is a little cryptic but the modularity
project has always been trying to lay the groundwork in a non-disruptive
way. So you will be able to build modules and have a disconnect from
gen-core and app lifecycle but the gen-core will probably be big at
first, not all apps will be modularized, many leaf apps sitting in an
"everything else" module, etc. Over time (and it is semi-unpredictable
length), we will get closer and closer to the ideal.