-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 2020-06-18 at 08:44 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
Hello Fedora Community!
I am a long-time Fedora Community member, and may be familiar to
through previous FESCo or devel list discussions and passionate
debates. However I write to you today with a different community hat
on, as a lead Architect for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. The RHEL
organization has been following the modularity discussions within
Fedora, particularly around ELN, and often the question of what plans
we have for modularity in RHEL 9 has come up. Our Fedora Project
and a number of FESCo members have reached out and asked if we can
provide some perspective here, and I am both happy and excited to
As the Fedora Council has pointed out , we certainly acknowledge
there are improvements to be made and have a team already working on
them. They recently outlined their plans in conjunction with our
Product Management team in a Fedora Council call as well . We’re
continuing to invest time and effort in this packaging solution and
are confident that the team can deliver against their plan. It is
somewhat of a new experience for all of us when Red Hat is direct
our product intentions, but we discussed the larger gaps we see with
usage in RHEL and are putting our efforts towards solving those gaps
with this plan.
Modularity is important to RHEL and those efforts are already
underway. We will be leveraging modularity in RHEL 9 where it most
makes sense. This is primarily centered around our Application
Streams concept, which has been well received by our customer base.
Providing a consistent but improved experience is the base
requirement, which allows us to have continuity from RHEL 8 to RHEL 9
and lowers the hurdle for our customers when upgrading from one major
version to another.
It is nice to hear that it is helping to solve problems in RHEL (even
though I've heard many people saying that it is nightmare now). Is
there a list of requirements that you have so that we could potentially
develop something that would be useful to Fedora same as for RHEL 10+?
It is always good to push the boundaries and search for better ideas
and improvements, and that is part of what makes Fedora great. We
doing this in the context of the RHEL 9 release as well, so our near
term timeline and requirements mean we are working on evolving
modularity, not a revolution or a replacement. We are excited by
as it presents a possible space to allow those that want to continue
to iterate on modules a place to do so without necessarily impacting
the broader Fedora distribution in its entirety. It is my personal
hope that we can use that opportunity to improve modules and
modularity in the open source, Fedora-first way we’d prefer. Our
term effort to improve the existing modularity implementation ahead
RHEL 9 needs to occur, and we’d like to do that work in Fedora,
than in closed product development. Longer term, we are open to
contributing to a better replacement that meets many of the same
goals. This is what makes our distribution ecosystem work well, and
not having that upstream lessens the value we all get from such
experimentation in the open.
While I support you that we should do it in Fedora, does this
essentially mean that this technology is useful only for RHEL and you
do not plan to develop it *for Fedora*, but rather *for RHEL in
Hopefully that provides some context and helps FESCo and the wider
community understand where Red Hat is headed with modularity on the
Sadly no. It helps to understand your plans, however it does not help
to understand the reasons behind, whether you can't change UX in the
RHEL 9, or you think that technology is good enough for your use-cases
or any other reasons.
Basically this email just says "We decided for Modularity in RHEL 9 and
we would like to do it in Fedora Infrastructure first".
Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----