Le jeudi 16 janvier 2020 à 22:24 -0500, Neal Gompa a écrit :
I've also said that I don't think we can handle it as our
infrastructure currently stands. Our build system tooling has
suffered from a decade of neglect, and attempts to reinvent or
improve that have been rebuffed or failed in other ways.
there's an underlying general problem that it is okay to
hobble along because we've hobbled along for so long.
I agree 100%, thanks for posting this, it’s not easy be the messenger
for bad news.
Incrementalism has its place, but this is something where once we
implement the "just enough increment", we'll stop again and
everything will just be uncomfortable and somewhat unhelpful,
And here I disagree. Beware of the “let’s rewrite everything better”
trap. If anything our incremental fixes failed more often than not
because key players waited on big bang magical solutions (for example,
We need to implement more incremental fixes. Incremental does not mean
risk free, it means *managed* risk. Project members need to accept
incremental changes need to go in, and they need to accept incremental
changes may break things or require some amount of project-wide work.
And, the Fedora leadership needs to do its leadership job. Leadership
does not mean promoting fuzzy long term objectives that no one can
disagree on because of the fuzziness, and that will explode on someone
else’s turn. Leadership means decisions for today, not just tomorrow.
Big bang initiatives have their places, but only when incrementalism
has hit a technical impasse. The Boeing 737 is an example where
incrementalism hit its limits. But, the 70 years of some 737 components
show how long incrementalism can be successful, as long as it it